# Why did Luther and Calvin percieve the anabaptists to be heretics?



## Jon 316

So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.

Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists. 

I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position. 

Can anyone shed some light? 

Thanks in advance.

John


----------



## rbcbob

John, I have sought to deal faithfully and fairly with Anabaptists here:

SermonAudio.com - The Anabaptists


SermonAudio.com - The Matrix of Reformed Baptists Part 1


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jon 316 said:


> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John


 
...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."


----------



## Jon 316

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
Click to expand...

 
Thanks for this.

Are these things _really_ heresy though?


----------



## rbcbob

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
Click to expand...


Riley,
That's a very broad brush that you're painting with. Have you studied the Anabaptists? I could tell you more than enough about SOME, even MANY of them who went to excesses. But I could also tell you of those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ, served Him faithfully, and were persecuted and killed for their simple faith.

I would recommend George H. Williams well researched and documented SPIRITUAL AND ANABAPTIST WRITERS as a good place to begin your study.


----------



## N. Eshelman

One thing that needs to be clear is that Baptists do not come from the anabaptist camp, per se. Many of today's Baptists come out of the English Puritan tradition (they have just abandoned much). It is important to keep the two groups different in your thinking. 

Anabaptists did not believe that the church was being reformed- they thought that it was being re formed, meaning that at some point in time the church had ceased to exist! Calvin, Luther, et al taught that the church had continued through the Spirit's preservation, but that it had become corrupt and they would bringing it back to faithfulness. The Anabaptists taught that they were starting over more or less. 

Huge difference between them and today's baptist.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jon 316 said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> Are these things _really_ heresy though?
Click to expand...

 
According to the old, biblical definition, heresy is any false doctrine which splits, or disrupts the church.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------




rbcbob said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riley,
> That's a very broad brush that you're painting with. Have you studied the Anabaptists? I could tell you more than enough about SOME, even MANY of them who went to excesses. But I could also tell you of those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ, served Him faithfully, and were persecuted and killed for their simple faith.
> 
> I would recommend George H. Williams well researched and documented SPIRITUAL AND ANABAPTIST WRITERS as a good place to begin your study.
Click to expand...

 
While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.


----------



## Christusregnat

On a more fundamental level, they held deep seated errors regarding the applicability of the Old Testament, generally going too far in the direction of merely considering the OT as nice history (Mennonites), or outright rejection of the Mosaic duty of the magistrate to be keeper of both tables of the law.

On the other hand, some were so greatly misled that they considered certain portions of strictly Jewish laws to be still applicable (some thought polygamy was right).

Many of them were mystics (the bible according to my own private feeling), visionaries, etc.

Some believed that magistracy was carnal (due to their rejection of Moses), and were hard-core antinomians practicing "spiritual marriage," freeing them to commit adultery, murdering, setting up nudist colonies, etc.

Again, as was pointed out above, the modern Baptists don't share many things with the "radical reformers."

The basic error was a rejection of the Old Testament. And, yes, this is heresy. Oh, and there are many "reformed" people today that would be considered heretics by Luther and Calvin due to their view of the magistrate's relationship to both tables of the Law and rejection of Christendom.

Cheers,


----------



## rbcbob

Christusregnat said:


> On a more fundamental level, they held deep seated errors regarding the applicability of the Old Testament, generally going too far in the direction of merely considering the OT as nice history (Mennonites), or outright rejection of the Mosaic duty of the magistrate to be keeper of both tables of the law.
> 
> On the other hand, some were so greatly misled that they considered certain portions of strictly Jewish laws to be still applicable (some thought polygamy was right).
> 
> Many of them were mystics (the bible according to my own private feeling), visionaries, etc.
> 
> Some believed that magistracy was carnal (due to their rejection of Moses), and were hard-core antinomians practicing "spiritual marriage," freeing them to commit adultery, murdering, setting up nudist colonies, etc.
> 
> Again, as was pointed out above, the modern Baptists don't share many things with the "radical reformers."
> 
> *The basic error was a rejection of the Old Testament. And, yes, this is heresy*. Oh, and there are many "reformed" people today that would be considered heretics by Luther and Calvin due to their view of the magistrate's relationship to both tables of the Law and rejection of Christendom.
> 
> Cheers,



Must I then consider Luther a heretic because he rejected the epistle of James? I do not so consider him.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------




> While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.
> 
> Riley



So you are with Zwingli who stood by approvingly as Manz was murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

rbcbob said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> On a more fundamental level, they held deep seated errors regarding the applicability of the Old Testament, generally going too far in the direction of merely considering the OT as nice history (Mennonites), or outright rejection of the Mosaic duty of the magistrate to be keeper of both tables of the law.
> 
> On the other hand, some were so greatly misled that they considered certain portions of strictly Jewish laws to be still applicable (some thought polygamy was right).
> 
> Many of them were mystics (the bible according to my own private feeling), visionaries, etc.
> 
> Some believed that magistracy was carnal (due to their rejection of Moses), and were hard-core antinomians practicing "spiritual marriage," freeing them to commit adultery, murdering, setting up nudist colonies, etc.
> 
> Again, as was pointed out above, the modern Baptists don't share many things with the "radical reformers."
> 
> *The basic error was a rejection of the Old Testament. And, yes, this is heresy*. Oh, and there are many "reformed" people today that would be considered heretics by Luther and Calvin due to their view of the magistrate's relationship to both tables of the Law and rejection of Christendom.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must I then consider Luther a heretic because he rejected the epistle of James? I do not so consider him.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:04 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.
> 
> Riley
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are with Zwingli who stood by approvingly as Manz murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?
Click to expand...

 
No, because although this might possibly have been his private opinion, it was not something that he took into his own hands to alter without the common consent of the church. He included it in his magisterial Bible translation. This separates Luther from heretics, who cause divisions in the church over false doctrines.


----------



## Jon 316

Jus to clarify.

I was not implying modern baptists were a direct succession from anabaptists- just that they are theological bed fellows when it comes to things like baptism, believers church, seperation of church and state.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Some of the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were heretics in the classical sense, i.e. they denied key doctrines found in the Ecumenical Creeds. So, for instance, Menno Simons and Melchior Hoffmann held to a heavenly-flesh Christology, holding that Jesus received his human flesh from heaven and not from Mary. This view ran square against the Athanasian Creed. I have written about Guido de Bres' efforts to address this error in his magnum opus -- click on this link to read.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> Are these things _really_ heresy though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the old, biblical definition, heresy is any false doctrine which splits, or disrupts the church.
Click to expand...


Wow, then there are many paedo baptists who are heretics because of the schisms in their dividing from each other. Issues of Congregationalism, Doctrines of ecclesiology, Civil Government, slavery, etc. etc. etc., have been reasons of schism. According to your definition these guys are outside.

I think you need to tighten up your definition. I affirm the Ecumenical Historic Creeds.


----------



## torstar

Are these things _really_ heresy though?[/QUOTE]



no


----------



## Damon Rambo

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> Are these things _really_ heresy though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the old, biblical definition, heresy is any false doctrine which splits, or disrupts the church.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riley,
> That's a very broad brush that you're painting with. Have you studied the Anabaptists? I could tell you more than enough about SOME, even MANY of them who went to excesses. But I could also tell you of those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ, served Him faithfully, and were persecuted and killed for their simple faith.
> 
> I would recommend George H. Williams well researched and documented SPIRITUAL AND ANABAPTIST WRITERS as a good place to begin your study.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.
Click to expand...

 
Wow! You need a history lesson!

Zwingli's pupils DID approach Zwingli privately about Baptism. Zwingli basically told them to shut up. They then did the Biblical thing, when someone is not adhering to scripture; they proclaimed the truth anyway.

By your definition, the reformers, who did the same thing, are also heretics for causing division. The fact is, although there were some horrible Anabaptists, there is also pretty good examples of guys who had decent theology, and approached the situation Biblically...several of them were killed for it.

The fact of the matter is, there is a LOT of stuff that most people on here would agree with the Anabaptists about, over against the reformers. For instance, Hubmaier was one of the first people, ever, to assert that people should have freedom to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution. Most of the early reformers did not. I have not met a modern reformed guy yet, that says "Heretics should be killed."

As far as the origins of Baptists, two strains of Baptists arose, separately for the most part. One, the General Baptists started under Helwys, owe much of their doctrine to the Anabaptists (although, the were equally influenced by the Separatists {not Puritans, as someone has said earlier}).

The other group was a break off of the church started by Jacobs, led by Spilsbery. No one has been able to demonstrate a decisive link between the Spilsbery Church and the Anabaptists, and the private testimony seems to be that they came to their consensus separately through scriptural study.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist

To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:


> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"


 Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.


----------



## Damon Rambo

CovenantalBaptist said:


> To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"
> 
> 
> 
> Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.
Click to expand...

 
Right. What is interesting is that both the first, and the second LBC, were actually remakes of Calvinist/Reformed documents. The 1689 confession of course, was taken from the Westminster confession, as everyone knows. What is not known by many, is that the First London confession was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> CovenantalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"
> 
> 
> 
> Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. What is interesting is that both the first, and the second LBC, were actually remakes of Calvinist/Reformed documents. The 1689 confession of course, was taken from the Westminster confession, as everyone knows. What is not known by many, is that the First London confession was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists.
Click to expand...

Who needs a History lesson? 

The 1644 is way before the 1646 WCF. It was a retaliation to some things that were leveled against the RBC or Particalar Baptists. You have a lot to learn. The Second was taken from the Savoy Declaration.


----------



## Grimmson

Willem van Oranje said:


> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."


 
I think we need to remember that the term Anabaptist is a broad category. Not all of the Anabaptist were sola scriptura or held to a separation between the church and the state. One example that fits both of these criteria is with the Münster Rebellion. Private mysterious prophecies were elevated higher then scripture, and not just with John Matthys. It was also the case with the Zwickau prophets in 1521-22. Thomas Muntzer was influenced by these crazy charismatic figures and was a leading figure in the Peasant Revolt of 1525 (about 10 years prior to the Münster Rebellion). These rebellions showed not a desire to separate the church and the state, but instead to violently reform it to their own understanding and practice. A separation between the two was not really an issue, but a response against the subjecting themselves to the reformation of Luther and Zwingli sponsored by the city leaders, and also against Roman Catholic control. In other words there was a desire to have more freedom and the willingness to fight for that freedom, instead of accepting their current rulers. It is for that reason why these groups tried to flock together and form their own society in a similar fashion as the Amish and Mennonites, who are both descended from Anabaptist movement. And as you can see with the Amish today there isn’t a strong separation from the church and the state, the two are interconnected closely.

The act of polygamy was introduced by charismatic visions of God in the city of Münster and was reinforced by a similar sect of Anabaptists founded by Jan van Batenburg. 

I would make the argument that mysticistic, Pentecostal like, practices overshadowed their doctrine of scripture and thus raised personal religious experience over the scripture and the church. These practices were seen by reformers like Luther and Calvin and saw it as heresies, similar to that practiced by Rome and to some degree worst. It is for that reason the “its just me and my Bible” critique would not really be a valid representation of the Anabaptist as a whole. 

We as Baptist have not really studied the Anabaptist and some hold to them, wrongfully I would add, as brothers under a trail of blood theory; without really looking at the theology and practices of such groups. I would also add that some people today would be attracted to their various practices of personal works righteousness principle compared to a imputed righteousness, evangelical and Pentecostal behaviors (healings, visions, still quite voice of God, and speaking in tongues), and one kingdom approach of conquering the world for Christ (outside of a strict preaching of the Gospel).

I think it is also important to add that baptism in the minds of Luther and Calvin were closely connected to the one faith in Christ. Rebaptism would be a rejection of that objective one faith in Christ and the Gospel, as related to the universal church, instead to have it replaced by the feelings of personal religious experience grounding the reason for baptism. And I do think we see that today in Baptist circles, instead of completely on the confession of faith.

---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------

John, I assuming your reading 1535 edition. You need to understand that Luther was writing against the Anabaptist for well over ten years at that point (14 if you include the Zwickau prophets). So his readers knew the positions and beliefs well of the Anabaptists and more specifically the Bohemians regarding baptism. It is for that reason he may not of said as much as he could have.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Jon 316 said:


> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John


 
Well, if you read Luther´s commentary on Genesis, there you also find many swipe at anabaptists and no explainings. Commentary on Genesis is one of the last writings by Luther.
Luther's idea in the first place wasn't to form new church but reform catholic church. Luther didn't pay much attention on altar paintings like Calvin did. If I remember right, Luther had positive thoughts on anabaptism at first, but it might be that there was great presure among Luther's followers, so Luther gave up the idea. I heard this from some pentecostal people, so second hand information without sourse...
I think that Luther didn't like that people had two baptism, first as infant and second one as born again christian.


----------



## Grimmson

KaphLamedh said:


> If I remember right, Luther had positive thoughts on anabaptism at first


 
I heard that claim and the claim that Luther was briefly a credo by Baptists. Can you provide any primary material to back up your claim? I know I haven’t seen it in any Luther writings/readings from 1522 through 1530, or the credo claim from reading his works from 1519 through 1535.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> Are these things _really_ heresy though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the old, biblical definition, heresy is any false doctrine which splits, or disrupts the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, then there are many paedo baptists who are heretics because of the schisms in their dividing from each other. Issues of Congregationalism, Doctrines of ecclesiology, Civil Government, slavery, etc. etc. etc., have been reasons of schism. According to your definition these guys are outside.
> 
> I think you need to tighten up your definition. I affirm the Ecumenical Historic Creeds.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, if someone splits or disrupts a church over these issues, there are only two options. They are A. heretics (according to the biblical definition) or B. they are right. In other cases there may be separation where there was not ever a split. This is not in the same category as a disruption of a church which was once at peace. There was never a _heresis._

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------




> Zwingli's pupils DID approach Zwingli privately about Baptism. Zwingli basically told them to shut up. They then did the Biblical thing, when someone is not adhering to scripture; they proclaimed the truth anyway.


 
At which point the godly, Christian thing to do would have been to "shut up." "Proclaiming the truth anyway" presumes that what they were teaching was true, which it was not. It was a false doctrine. People who go around proclaiming false doctrine to disrupt the church are called heretics in Scripture, with instructions to "reject them" after two admonitions. 



> By your definition, the reformers, who did the same thing, are also heretics for causing division. The fact is, although there were some horrible Anabaptists, there is also pretty good examples of guys who had decent theology, and approached the situation Biblically...several of them were killed for it.



Difference is that the Reformers were preaching the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and Rome, by denying it and refusing to allow it, proved itself to be a false church which warrants causing a split. 

Do you think that the Reformed churches from which the Anabaptists split were false churches? If they weren't false churches, the Anabaptists should have submitted to their authority instead of causing a split over baptism. 



> The fact of the matter is, there is a LOT of stuff that most people on here would agree with the Anabaptists about, over against the reformers. For instance, Hubmaier was one of the first people, ever, to assert that people should have freedom to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution. Most of the early reformers did not. I have not met a modern reformed guy yet, that says "Heretics should be killed."



You just met one. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 AM ----------




> I think it is also important to add that baptism in the minds of Luther and Calvin were closely connected to the one faith in Christ. Rebaptism would be a rejection of that objective one faith in Christ and the Gospel, as related to the universal church, instead to have it replaced by the feelings of personal religious experience grounding the reason for baptism. And I do think we see that today in Baptist circles, instead of completely on the confession of faith.



Yes, that's right. Go, Luther and Calvin!


----------



## Steve Curtis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CovenantalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"
> 
> 
> 
> Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. What is interesting is that both the first, and the second LBC, were actually remakes of Calvinist/Reformed documents. The 1689 confession of course, was taken from the Westminster confession, as everyone knows. What is not known by many, is that the First London confession was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who needs a History lesson?
> 
> The 1644 is way before the 1646 WCF. It was a retaliation to some things that were leveled against the RBC or Particalar Baptists. You have a lot to learn. The Second was taken from the Savoy Declaration.
Click to expand...

 
I don't know who is right here, but it seems that you misunderstood what Damon said. He did not say that the 1644 Confession drew from the WCF; rather, he said that it "was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists."


----------



## Willem van Oranje

By the way, the Anabaptists who were drowned in Zürich were executed not for their ideas on baptism, but for their defiance of the civil authority. They had been banished, but refused to leave. So the city didn't know what else to do.


----------



## teddyrux

Willem van Oranje said:


> While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.


 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition above, the following people are heretics: Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon. If someone believes that paedo-baptism is not Scriptural they have a duty to "spout those thoughts in public". Actually, that is exactly what the reformers did for many doctrines held by Rome.*

*Heresy is a teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation. Does paedo-baptism fit the definition of heresy? Is it an essential of the Christian faith?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> While some may have been more intentionally disruptive than others, they all threatened, and in some cases destroyed the unity of the church. I'm with Zwingli on this one. Just because one gets the idea that paedo-baptism is not warranted, that doesn't give that person the right to start spouting those thoughts in public and cause a divide in the church over it. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy. Instead, they should have consulted with their elders and pastor, and respected the tradition of the church until they were satisfied. You don't just start re-baptizing yourself and others, and encourage other people to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition above, the following people are heretics: Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, and Spurgeon. If someone believes that paedo-baptism is not Scriptural they have a duty to "spout those thoughts in public". Actually, that is exactly what the reformers did for many doctrines held by Rome.*
> 
> *Heresy is a teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation. Does paedo-baptism fit the definition of heresy? Is it an essential of the Christian faith?
Click to expand...

 
You are using a very modern definition of heresy, not the biblical one. Paedo-baptism is a correct doctrine, and therefore it cannot be heresy. The Reformers were not heretics, because their objections to Rome were correct, and because Rome proved itself to be a false church.

Were the Reformed churches from which the ana-baptists (or as Calvin called them, the Cata-baptists="Against Baptism") caused significant split and disruption false churches? If they were true churches, these people ought to have been much more careful to protect the peace and purity of the Reformed churches.


----------



## Christusregnat

rbcbob said:


> So you are with Zwingli who stood by approvingly as Manz was murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?


 
Before you condemn Zwingli too harshly, you may want to read his tricks of the Catabaptists, instead of peddling silly Baptist make believe stories. The Anabaptists were practicing parricide, polygamy, murder, adultery, etc. all in the name of "freedom in Christ." Also, they undermined the foundations of Christendom, and cut off all of the saints' children from the Church of Christ. Their "freedom in Christ" was wicked license, and the rejection of infant baptism was merely the cap-stone on their mountain of error. These are no light matters.

If a soceity's biblical foundations are attacked, that is not merely a mental disagreement, or heresy, it is murder on a massive scale: murder of Christ's kingdom. I think it shortsighted to say that they were executed merely for "infant baptism": no, it was much more fundamental than that. That was merely the cap-stone.

So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> So you are with Zwingli who stood by approvingly as Manz was murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?


 
It was not "murder." It was civil execution. And yes, I am with Zwingli on the matter. I don't see it as having been so much about Manz's view on baptism per se, (which was an error in itself,) but his disruption of the peace of the church of Christ over this error. In other words, he would not have been executed, had he kept it to himself, or pursued it only peacably with the elders.


----------



## teddyrux

Willem van Oranje said:


> You are using a very modern definition of heresy, not the biblical one. Paedo-baptism is a correct doctrine, and therefore it cannot be heresy. The Reformers were not heretics, because their objections to Rome were correct, and because Rome proved itself to be a false church.



So you're saying that John MacArthur, Zwingli, John Piper, the Divines who crafted the London Baptist Confession of 1689, and myself are heretics?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using a very modern definition of heresy, not the biblical one. Paedo-baptism is a correct doctrine, and therefore it cannot be heresy. The Reformers were not heretics, because their objections to Rome were correct, and because Rome proved itself to be a false church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that John MacArthur, Zwingli, John Piper, the Divines who crafted the London Baptist Confession of 1689, and myself are heretics?
Click to expand...


Well those of us in paedo-baptist camp confess in the WCF that a refusal to baptize your infants is a "great sin".


----------



## KaphLamedh

Grimmson said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember right, Luther had positive thoughts on anabaptism at first
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that claim and the claim that Luther was briefly a credo by Baptists. Can you provide any primary material to back up your claim? I know I haven’t seen it in any Luther writings/readings from 1522 through 1530, or the credo claim from reading his works from 1519 through 1535.
Click to expand...

 
Could be that you are right 
As I earlier wrote "if I remember right"?


----------



## Ne Oublie

Isn't it interesting the different views from those that are Baptist posting and those that are Paedobaptist posting in regards to the Anabaptists?

I would not have thought it would have been such a touchy subject!


----------



## Willem van Oranje

teddyrux said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using a very modern definition of heresy, not the biblical one. Paedo-baptism is a correct doctrine, and therefore it cannot be heresy. The Reformers were not heretics, because their objections to Rome were correct, and because Rome proved itself to be a false church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that John MacArthur, Zwingli, John Piper, the Divines who crafted the London Baptist Confession of 1689, and myself are heretics?
Click to expand...

 
Not sure how Zwingli's name made your list. Again, a heretic is someone who splits the church over a false doctrine. This is to be distinguished from those who merely continue to promote a long-standing false doctrine in a church of which they are a part. Those to continue a false doctrine which they have inherited (so to speak) are not as harshly to be judged as those who are the first to promote it, and who actually split and disrupt a true church of Christ over it.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Ne Oublie said:


> Isn't it interesting the different views from those that are Baptist posting and those that are Paedobaptist posting in regards to the Anabaptists?
> 
> I would not have thought it would have been such a touchy subject!



Yeah! But why there has to be disagreement on baptism between believers?


----------



## torstar

Ne Oublie said:


> Isn't it interesting the different views from those that are Baptist posting and those that are Paedobaptist posting in regards to the Anabaptists?
> 
> I would not have thought it would have been such a touchy subject!


----------



## KaphLamedh

torstar said:


> Ne Oublie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting the different views from those that are Baptist posting and those that are Paedobaptist posting in regards to the Anabaptists?
> 
> I would not have thought it would have been such a touchy subject!
Click to expand...


----------



## Damon Rambo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CovenantalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"
> 
> 
> 
> Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. What is interesting is that both the first, and the second LBC, were actually remakes of Calvinist/Reformed documents. The 1689 confession of course, was taken from the Westminster confession, as everyone knows. What is not known by many, is that the First London confession was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who needs a History lesson?
> 
> The 1644 is way before the 1646 WCF. It was a retaliation to some things that were leveled against the RBC or Particalar Baptists. You have a lot to learn. The Second was taken from the Savoy Declaration.
Click to expand...

 
My friend,

First, you have not read my post carefully. I stated the FIRST London Baptist Confession, came from the 1596 True Confession (_Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, pages 59-74, Walker, Williston. This was drafted by the Congregationalist Separatist Church, started by Johnson and Ainsworth (the names are from memory, so it might be incorrect.)

This confession was the model that the 1644 confession used (Baptist Confessions of Faith, by Lumpkin, William, 146.)

Now, in regards to the Second LBCF. You are wrong. Yes, the Savoy declaration was consulted as well. I was not trying to give a course on Baptist history. However, Elder William Collins used the Westminster, in addition to the Savoy, as his model (Lumpkin, 236). If you will turn your attention to the documents themselves, for but a moment, I can prove to you this unequivocal reality, straight from the source. I will give you several articles of each Confession to compare, showing word-for word agreement between the 2LBCF, and the WCF, AGAINST the Savoy declaration. I will go ahead and post one example in full.

WCF Chapter VI, article one, states (in part)..

"God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory."
*
The 2LBCF, same chapter and article, quotes this word for word. It is absent from the Savoy Declaration.*

Other articles after this model, include 
Chapter 10, article 3 ,
Chapter 16, article 1, 
Chapter 18, Article 2, 
WCF Chapter 16, article 2, SDFO Chapter 17, article 2, 2LBCF Chapter 17 (or 18, depending on version) article 2, 

To name but a few. In all of these instances, the LBCF and WCF have word-for-word agreement, disagreeing with the Savoy declaration.

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:





PuritanCovenanter said:





Willem van Oranje said:





Jon 316 said:





Willem van Oranje said:





Jon 316 said:



So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.

Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists. 

I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position. 

Can anyone shed some light? 

Thanks in advance.

John

Click to expand...

 
...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."

Click to expand...

 
Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?

Click to expand...

 
According to the old, biblical definition, heresy is any false doctrine which splits, or disrupts the church.

Click to expand...


Wow, then there are many paedo baptists who are heretics because of the schisms in their dividing from each other. Issues of Congregationalism, Doctrines of ecclesiology, Civil Government, slavery, etc. etc. etc., have been reasons of schism. According to your definition these guys are outside.

I think you need to tighten up your definition. I affirm the Ecumenical Historic Creeds.

Click to expand...

 
Yes, if someone splits or disrupts a church over these issues, there are only two options. They are A. heretics (according to the biblical definition) or B. they are right. In other cases there may be separation where there was not ever a split. This is not in the same category as a disruption of a church which was once at peace. There was never a heresis.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------





Zwingli's pupils DID approach Zwingli privately about Baptism. Zwingli basically told them to shut up. They then did the Biblical thing, when someone is not adhering to scripture; they proclaimed the truth anyway.

Click to expand...

 
At which point the godly, Christian thing to do would have been to "shut up." "Proclaiming the truth anyway" presumes that what they were teaching was true, which it was not. It was a false doctrine. People who go around proclaiming false doctrine to disrupt the church are called heretics in Scripture, with instructions to "reject them" after two admonitions. 




By your definition, the reformers, who did the same thing, are also heretics for causing division. The fact is, although there were some horrible Anabaptists, there is also pretty good examples of guys who had decent theology, and approached the situation Biblically...several of them were killed for it.

Click to expand...


Difference is that the Reformers were preaching the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and Rome, by denying it and refusing to allow it, proved itself to be a false church which warrants causing a split. 

Do you think that the Reformed churches from which the Anabaptists split were false churches? If they weren't false churches, the Anabaptists should have submitted to their authority instead of causing a split over baptism.

Click to expand...


Hmm. Luther himself said "Unless I am convinced by Scripture, or by pure reason, I cannot retract anything, for going against conscience, is neither right, nor safe..."

And yes, although I do not want to open up a "can of worms" here, I think Zwingli was a politician, more than a Christian, and does not deserve to be grouped with men like Calvin and Luther. 

But that is just me.






The fact of the matter is, there is a LOT of stuff that most people on here would agree with the Anabaptists about, over against the reformers. For instance, Hubmaier was one of the first people, ever, to assert that people should have freedom to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution. Most of the early reformers did not. I have not met a modern reformed guy yet, that says "Heretics should be killed."

Click to expand...


You just met one. Pleased to make your acquaintance.


Click to expand...



This is just unbelievably sad. You think that I and the other baptists on this board should be killed?!

Love you to, brother. _


----------



## torstar

KaphLamedh said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ne Oublie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting the different views from those that are Baptist posting and those that are Paedobaptist posting in regards to the Anabaptists?
> 
> I would not have thought it would have been such a touchy subject!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

For sure.

I made the switch from credo to paedo-baptism over the past few years. Had to explain myself over a decent amount of time in the 6 or so hours of pastor/elder chatter/interview.

Came up with a suitable answer that was 100% honest to the core.

It required a lot of high speed circular-motion-hand-waving to accompany it.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> Hmm. Luther himself said "Unless I am convinced by Scripture, or by pure reason, I cannot retract anything, for going against conscience, is neither right, nor safe..."



You are talking about a man who had a teachable spirit, who did everything he could NOT to split the one church catholic. Even his statement at the Diet of Worms shows that he was willing to be shown if he was in error. This was a man who revered church history, and the church catholic. This is in start contrast to the attitude of Grebel and Manz.



> And yes, although I do not want to open up a "can of worms" here, I think Zwingli was a politician, more than a Christian, and does not deserve to be grouped with men like Calvin and Luther.
> But that is just me.



Zwingli was a great Reformer and a martyr for the Christian faith. We are all as indebted to him as we are to Luther and Calvin. He was above all a pastor. I find it sad that one claiming Reformed roots would say otherwise. I think in this regard, humanist Enlightenment thinking has got the better of some of us.



> This is just unbelievably sad. You think that I and the other baptists on this board should be killed?!
> 
> Love you to, brother.



No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never called anyone on this board a "heretic." Thank you for the love, and the prayer, brother.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Willem van Oranje said:


> Hmm. Luther himself said "Unless I am convinced by Scripture, or by pure reason, I cannot retract anything, for going against conscience, is neither right, nor safe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about a man who had a teachable spirit, who did everything he could NOT to split the one church catholic. Even his statement at the Diet of Worms shows that he was willing to be shown if he was in error. This was a man who revered church history, and the church catholic. This is in start contrast to the attitude of Grebel and Manz.
Click to expand...


No, it is not in stark contrast to them. Grebel and Manz were actually very patient men, and debated the issue privately for nearly three years...not just the issue of baptism, but the issue of Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper, which Zwingli was in agreement with, but refused to implement for political reasons. I believe (again, this is from memory, so I might be wrong), it was not until Zwingli's second disputation in 1523, that these men finally spoke up publicly. And it was 2 years of public debate after that, that they finally split off.

The fact is, there is no excuse for Zwingli and his men gleefully giving these men their "third baptism." This is disgusting, anti-christian behavior. 



> And yes, although I do not want to open up a "can of worms" here, I think Zwingli was a politician, more than a Christian, and does not deserve to be grouped with men like Calvin and Luther.
> But that is just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zwingli was a great Reformer and a martyr for the Christian faith. We are all as indebted to him as we are to Luther and Calvin. He was above all a pastor. I find it sad that one claiming Reformed roots would say otherwise. I think in this regard, humanist Enlightenment thinking has got the better of some of us.
Click to expand...


Zwingli died in a battle that was as much political as it was religious. He was not put to death for his faith. And FYI, I am not the first reformed-minded person to speak ill of Zwingli. Luther even spoke ill of Zwingli.



> This is just unbelievably sad. You think that I and the other baptists on this board should be killed?!
> 
> Love you to, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never called anyone on this board a "heretic." Thank you for the love, and the prayer, brother.
Click to expand...

 
I am not putting words in your mouth. You said we should not have freedom of religion: heretics should be put to death. Since I am agreeing with Manz and Grebel on their split (though not with all of their theology) over baptism, would that not make me equally a "heretic" in your eyes, and hence, I should be put to death?


----------



## rbcbob

Christusregnat said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are with Zwingli who stood by approvingly as Manz was murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you condemn Zwingli too harshly, you may want to read his tricks of the Catabaptists, instead of peddling silly Baptist make believe stories. The Anabaptists were practicing parricide, polygamy, murder, adultery, etc. all in the name of "freedom in Christ." Also, they undermined the foundations of Christendom, and cut off all of the saints' children from the Church of Christ. Their "freedom in Christ" was wicked license, and the rejection of infant baptism was merely the cap-stone on their mountain of error. These are no light matters.
> 
> If a soceity's biblical foundations are attacked, that is not merely a mental disagreement, or heresy, it is murder on a massive scale: murder of Christ's kingdom. I think it shortsighted to say that they were executed merely for "infant baptism": no, it was much more fundamental than that. That was merely the cap-stone.
> 
> *So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics*.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I understand you. Perhaps you misspoke. If Theonomy seizes the day and takes political power in this country *you* would agree with drowning me and my church for our Baptist beliefs. Is that your position?


----------



## Damon Rambo

This thread is beginning to scare me. Am I going to get whacked over the head, and drowned at T4G in 2012?? Every reformed paedobaptist person I have ever met, was at least willing to admit that the Reformers were _overzealous_ in the murder of heretics..

Really. I am scared.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> No, it is not in stark contrast to them. Grebel and Manz were actually very patient men, and debated the issue privately for nearly three years...not just the issue of baptism, but the issue of Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper, which Zwingli was in agreement with, but refused to implement for political reasons. I believe (again, this is from memory, so I might be wrong), it was not until Zwingli's second disputation in 1523, that these men finally spoke up publicly. And it was 2 years of public debate after that, that they finally split off.



I tend to think that if they had been truly teachable on this subject, they would have easily been convinced by the sheer weight of evidence supporting paedo-baptism. But even if we assume that they were teachable, they should have continued to keep their dissention private. The only justification for disrupting the peace and order of that church would be if the Reformed Church of Zuerich were not a true church. Is this your position?



> The fact is, there is no excuse for Zwingli and his men gleefully giving these men their "third baptism." This is disgusting, anti-christian behavior.



It wasn't "Zwingli and his men." It was the civil authority.



> Zwingli died in a battle that was as much political as it was religious. He was not put to death for his faith. And FYI, I am not the first reformed-minded person to speak ill of Zwingli. Luther even spoke ill of Zwingli.



He died in battle as the men of Zuerich were defending their church, city, homes and families against Papist agression. This qualifies as martyrdom in my book. Some say that he died with a sword in his hand. Others say he was ministering to Zuerich's soldiers. I kind of hope that the former is the case. It would be the duty of any Christian man, no matter what his usual calling might be, to take up arms in a situation like that.



> I am not putting words in your mouth. You said we should not have freedom of religion: heretics should be put to death. Since I am agreeing with Manz and Grebel on their split (though not with all of their theology) over baptism, would that not make me equally a "heretic" in your eyes, and hence, I should be put to death?



Freedom of religion is not freedom of heresy.

Have you split a church over your anti-paedo baptism? Would you seek membership in a Reformed, i. e. paedo-baptist, church, and then proceed to make an issue of paedo-baptism, encouraging members to re-baptize one another and withhold their children from baptism?

There was a situation in a Presbyterian church of which I was once a member, in which a woman (my wife, actually) was received merely on a profession of faith, having been baptized into Christ as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. One person in the church decided to make an issue of it. He began sending e-mails to the whole congregation telling them that this meant that our church was embracing Romanism. He proceeded to stop attending worship. He stated that he no longer wished to be a part of our church. Eventually, he was erased. Essentially this is a form of voluntary self-excommunication. He continues to send e-mails on this subject to the congregation, declaring that she is not a true church because she will recognize baptism which has taken place in the Roman Catholic Church. I consider this to be an example of "heresy." This man gave to himself, voluntarily, in his case, the equivalent of a spiritual death sentence because of his scruple. I have told him that we are praying for his salvation in Jesus' name. 

This case is analagous, I believe. Of course, there is one major difference, and that is that we do not have one established church anywhere in the United States these days. The state of the church is already terribly fractured. So for us to put ourselves in Zwingli's shoes, we have to consider what a difference it made that there was only one church in Zuerich. The Civil Authority was keen to keep the peace and order of the church, something which we do not enjoy today as far as our magistrate. Ours is a day like in Judges, when "every man did what was right in his own eyes."

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> This thread is beginning to scare me. Am I going to get whacked over the head, and drowned at T4G in 2012?? Every reformed paedobaptist person I have ever met, was at least willing to admit that the Reformers were _overzealous_ in the murder of heretics..
> 
> Really. I am scared.



Pastor Damon,

If I were an attendee or member of a Baptist church, I wouldn't make paedo-baptism into an issue which would disrupt and split the church. And I would be very careful how I brought it up. And if I had a child, I would not take it upon myself to baptize him or her as an infant. I would move to another locale where I could be a part of a paedo-baptist church. Or, otherwise, I would have to live with the doctrine and practice of that Baptist church. Why couldn't Grebel and Manz take this same attitude?


----------



## Christusregnat

rbcbob said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand you. Perhaps you misspoke. If Theonomy seizes the day and takes political power in this country *you* would agree with drowning me and my church for our Baptist beliefs. Is that your position?
Click to expand...

 
Context, context, context. I really don't think this sort of question deserves an answer. But, no, that's not my position.


----------



## Marrow Man

Mod Warning

Gentlemen, lets make sure we tone down the rhetoric in his discussion. It would be helpful if this topic could be discussed w/o using the word "heresy," but since that is part of the OP, that is not possible. Let us please accept the fact that no one is accusing anyone else on the PB of "heresy" and leave it at that. If anyone is actually doing that, however, we have bigger problems to deal with.


----------



## Christusregnat

Damon Rambo said:


> This thread is beginning to scare me. Am I going to get whacked over the head, and drowned at T4G in 2012?? Every reformed paedobaptist person I have ever met, was at least willing to admit that the Reformers were _overzealous_ in the murder of heretics..
> 
> Really. I am scared.


 
You slander the reformers by calling it murder. You need to repent of slandering the Reformers on this matter. They believed that the magistrate is keeper of both tables of the law, including punishment of violations of the laws concerning the true worship of God. This belief is founded in Scripture, and was attacked by the lawless Anabaptists, as it is by modern lawless theologians, regardless of whether they claim to be heirs of the reformation or not.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Willem van Oranje said:


> No, it is not in stark contrast to them. Grebel and Manz were actually very patient men, and debated the issue privately for nearly three years...not just the issue of baptism, but the issue of Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper, which Zwingli was in agreement with, but refused to implement for political reasons. I believe (again, this is from memory, so I might be wrong), it was not until Zwingli's second disputation in 1523, that these men finally spoke up publicly. And it was 2 years of public debate after that, that they finally split off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think that if they had been truly teachable on this subject, they would have easily been convinced by the sheer weight of evidence supporting paedo-baptism.
Click to expand...

Of course I disagree with this. I do not believe there is ANY evidence supporting paedobaptism. But this is off topic: lets keep on point.



> But even if we assume that they were teachable, they should have continued to keep their dissention private. The only justification for disrupting the peace and order of that church would be if the Reformed Church of Zuerich were not a true church. Is this your position?



But this was not the situation at all. The Church was already in a state of dissension, from Zwingli. Zwingli and his pupils just disagreed over how far that dissent should go. 

I do not agree with your premise. I believe that anytime something unbiblical is taught (like paedobaptism), it is the duty of every believer to stand up and say something. 


> The fact is, there is no excuse for Zwingli and his men gleefully giving these men their "third baptism." This is disgusting, anti-christian behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "Zwingli and his men." It was the civil authority.
Click to expand...


Um, it was Zwingli who issued a decree in 1526, stating that the Anabaptists were to be drowned. You have a modern, church/state separation idea of Government that was not present during Zwingli's time. The Church and the State were one entity.



> Zwingli died in a battle that was as much political as it was religious. He was not put to death for his faith. And FYI, I am not the first reformed-minded person to speak ill of Zwingli. Luther even spoke ill of Zwingli.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He died in battle as the men of Zuerich were defending their church, city, homes and families against Papist agression. This qualifies as martyrdom in my book. Some say that he died with a sword in his hand. Others say he was ministering to Zuerich's soldiers. I kind of hope that the former is the case. It would be the duty of any Christian man, no matter what his usual calling might be, to take up arms in a situation like that.
Click to expand...


A "martyr" in my mind, is a person who dies in way similar to that of Christ, like a "lamb to the slaughter." I would not include political revolutionaries, who die with sword in hand, under the title of "martyr."



> I am not putting words in your mouth. You said we should not have freedom of religion: heretics should be put to death. Since I am agreeing with Manz and Grebel on their split (though not with all of their theology) over baptism, would that not make me equally a "heretic" in your eyes, and hence, I should be put to death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of religion is not freedom of heresy.
> 
> Have you split a church over your anti-paedo baptism? Would you seek membership in a Reformed, i. e. paedo-baptist, church, and then proceed to make an issue of paedo-baptism, encouraging members to re-baptize one another and withhold their children from baptism?
Click to expand...

 
That is not what the Anabaptists did. They, and Zwingli, dissented from the Romanists. The church was already disrupted, and its views were not decided at this time. This was not some established Presbyterian church, that had been teaching the same doctrine for 20 years. This was a church which was shifting in its doctrine, and where two groups had different ideas on what that should be; so the one group killed the other.


----------



## Skyler

Seriously, guys. Have a little grace here--there's a distinct possibility that you just might be wrong! Don't be too proud to admit it.


----------



## Grimmson

Brothers, let not use this discussion on the Anabaptists to be an excuse to make charges against one another. As a Baptist, I have no problem looking at many of the Anabaptists as heretics for some of the reasons mentioned already by myself and others in this thread. However, my charge against them is not in regards to their practice of baptism, but instead on their views of justification, downgraded view of scripture as applied to Christian holiness and replaced with a exalted view of man in union with the Spirit, and their sinful behavior of visibly and forcibly rebelling against the state. 

It would be one issue if the Anabaptists were killed just because they practiced rebaptism, which is what the term means. It would also be another issue if they were forced by the church and the state to baptize their children. The problem is that the Anabaptists were not initially the peaceful singing kumbaya type. Instead of continually being patient with the church and state, some took up arms against the state, and not completely over the issue of baptism. They too, when the radical were in power, were a scary theonomy branch and were just as guilty of putting to death, and more so compared to the reformed cities against the Anabaptist, those that disagreed with them over various issues. The peaceful living anabaptist branches were not as much of a threat and were allowed to survive relatively speaking by the state. The problem that existed was that anabaptism was a political marker towards rebellious defiance against the state and other citizenry of a city, that lead itself towards hate speech and murder. Cities were not going to roll over on their back and give in to their demands; it would be seen as a sign of weakness to cities under Roman influence and by Rome as well. The line between politics and religion during that day was blurry. And I already mentioned the theological position of Luther on this issue.

We need to be careful and consider the wildly charged atmosphere politically and theologically during the time of the early reformation. If we do then that should keep our rhetoric in check. The reality that there were no Baptist during this time leads Baptist to find kindred sprits in the Reformation through the Anabaptists; despite of their heresies and faults. I and probably other reformed Baptist of today were probably been killed or excommunicated on both sides for expressing our theology. If one is going to look for purity of theology and clean bloodless hands, I say good luck to you because I can not think of a group or person that does in the early parts of the Reformation (I’m not including Hus, which was prior to the Reformation). Baptist need not to romanticize the Anabaptist and look to them as true representative martyrs of their own position, at least of the soteriologically reformed. If we value the truth then the truth is what we should pursue in all areas, including history. It is for this reason, you do not see me looking to the Anabaptist as heroes; even though a case can be made towards an influence of a credo position towards the English Separatists. 

And in regards to the issue of theonomy and Paedos taking control, hopefully our brothers here on this board will protect us credos; primarily because of our shared soteriological position in the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Damon Rambo said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not in stark contrast to them. Grebel and Manz were actually very patient men, and debated the issue privately for nearly three years...not just the issue of baptism, but the issue of Eucharist/Communion/Lords Supper, which Zwingli was in agreement with, but refused to implement for political reasons. I believe (again, this is from memory, so I might be wrong), it was not until Zwingli's second disputation in 1523, that these men finally spoke up publicly. And it was 2 years of public debate after that, that they finally split off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to think that if they had been truly teachable on this subject, they would have easily been convinced by the sheer weight of evidence supporting paedo-baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I disagree with this. I do not believe there is ANY evidence supporting paedobaptism. But this is off topic: lets keep on point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even if we assume that they were teachable, they should have continued to keep their dissention private. The only justification for disrupting the peace and order of that church would be if the Reformed Church of Zuerich were not a true church. Is this your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this was not the situation at all. The Church was already in a state of dissension, from Zwingli. Zwingli and his pupils just disagreed over how far that dissent should go.
> 
> I do not agree with your premise. I believe that anytime something unbiblical is taught (like paedobaptism), it is the duty of every believer to stand up and say something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, there is no excuse for Zwingli and his men gleefully giving these men their "third baptism." This is disgusting, anti-christian behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't "Zwingli and his men." It was the civil authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, it was Zwingli who issued a decree in 1526, stating that the Anabaptists were to be drowned. You have a modern, church/state separation idea of Government that was not present during Zwingli's time. The Church and the State were one entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zwingli died in a battle that was as much political as it was religious. He was not put to death for his faith. And FYI, I am not the first reformed-minded person to speak ill of Zwingli. Luther even spoke ill of Zwingli.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He died in battle as the men of Zuerich were defending their church, city, homes and families against Papist agression. This qualifies as martyrdom in my book. Some say that he died with a sword in his hand. Others say he was ministering to Zuerich's soldiers. I kind of hope that the former is the case. It would be the duty of any Christian man, no matter what his usual calling might be, to take up arms in a situation like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "martyr" in my mind, is a person who dies in way similar to that of Christ, like a "lamb to the slaughter." I would not include political revolutionaries, who die with sword in hand, under the title of "martyr."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not putting words in your mouth. You said we should not have freedom of religion: heretics should be put to death. Since I am agreeing with Manz and Grebel on their split (though not with all of their theology) over baptism, would that not make me equally a "heretic" in your eyes, and hence, I should be put to death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom of religion is not freedom of heresy.
> 
> Have you split a church over your anti-paedo baptism? Would you seek membership in a Reformed, i. e. paedo-baptist, church, and then proceed to make an issue of paedo-baptism, encouraging members to re-baptize one another and withhold their children from baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what the Anabaptists did. They, and Zwingli, dissented from the Romanists. The church was already disrupted, and its views were not decided at this time. This was not some established Presbyterian church, that had been teaching the same doctrine for 20 years. This was a church which was shifting in its doctrine, and where two groups had different ideas on what that should be; so the one group killed the other.
Click to expand...

 
[Edit], where are you getting your history from, the "Trail of Blood"? Try The Ana-baptists and their Stepchildren by Dr. F. N. Lee. 

The church in Zuerich had practiced the baptism of infant Christians for as long as it had existed. At the time of the Reformation, Zuerich allowed for a period of debate to occur on the topic of the baptism of infant Christians, but the Ana-baptists persisted even after it was decided, and began to take disruptive actions after it had already been decided. 

Although it's a common misconception these days to look back and think that church and state were one in Reformed nations of the 16th century, it is not the case. Cooperation between church and state does not destroy the distinction of jurisdictions. If used properly, mutual support and cooperation between church and state upholds the distinct power of each in their respective spheres of jurisdiction. The Reformed city-states of Switzerland at the time of the Reformation are largely a model of this distinction. And it goes back to the clear distinction between King and priesthood/prophets in the Old Testament. Zwingli was not issuing a civil decree that Anabaptists be drowned. He was providing spiritual counsel to the civil council as their pastor. There is a critical distinction.

Would it make you feel better if the Reformed citizens of Zuerich had simply allowed the Papist armies to come and kill them for their Protestant faith without taking up arms to defend themselves?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Grimmson said:


> And in regards to the issue of theonomy and Paedos taking control, hopefully our brothers here on this board will protect us credos; primarily because of our shared soteriological in the doctrines of grace.



While I know you are trying to be cute and bring in some much needed levity can anyone here point to any Theonomist who claims the Penal Code provides for the death penalty for credo-baptism alone? Because if you cannot I'd like the misrepresentation (whether purposeful or just ignorant) to stop.


----------



## Grimmson

Christusregnat said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand you. Perhaps you misspoke. If Theonomy seizes the day and takes political power in this country *you* would agree with drowning me and my church for our Baptist beliefs. Is that your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Context, context, context. I really don't think this sort of question deserves an answer. But, no, that's not my position.
Click to expand...

 
I think I would personally recommended their death by a quick beheading and not drawn out drowning if I lived during that time. Adam, I think you should have explained what you mean by context, and yes, it deserved in answer based on how I saw your post presented. I would have executed them by state authority because of their behavior towards political rebellion and murder within the context that I presented earlier. If that what you meant then we would have been in agreement.


----------



## Ne Oublie

> Zwingli died in a battle that was as much political as it was religious. He was not put to death for his faith. And FYI, I am not the first reformed-minded person to speak ill of Zwingli. Luther even spoke ill of Zwingli.



Can you further on this and cite your reference that would have you interpret it this way? Are you able to see that fine line between political and religious at this time, in this part of the world? Luther did not agree with Zwingli on the Lord's Supper, which by the way, Luther would have spoke ill of you in that manner as well. I am not aware of Luther speaking ill of Zwingli other than this, a reference or references would be nice on this as well.

My 2 cents....I think that if we are wealthy enough to invite the venerable dead to the discussion, we should respect them enough to use their own words.


----------



## Christusregnat

Grimmson said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand you. Perhaps you misspoke. If Theonomy seizes the day and takes political power in this country *you* would agree with drowning me and my church for our Baptist beliefs. Is that your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Context, context, context. I really don't think this sort of question deserves an answer. But, no, that's not my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I would personally recommended their death by a quick beheading and not drawn out drowning if I lived during that time. Adam, I think you should have explained what you mean by context, and yes, it deserved in answer based on how I saw your post presented. I would have executed them by state authority because of their behavior towards political rebellion and murder within the context that I presented earlier. If that what you meant then we would have been in agreement.
Click to expand...

 
David,

Let me repeat the context:



> Before you condemn Zwingli too harshly, you may want to read his tricks of the Catabaptists, instead of peddling silly Baptist make believe stories. The Anabaptists were practicing parricide, polygamy, murder, adultery, etc. all in the name of "freedom in Christ." Also, they undermined the foundations of Christendom, and cut off all of the saints' children from the Church of Christ. Their "freedom in Christ" was wicked license, and the rejection of infant baptism was merely the cap-stone on their mountain of error. These are no light matters.
> 
> If a soceity's biblical foundations are attacked, that is not merely a mental disagreement, or heresy, it is murder on a massive scale: murder of Christ's kingdom. I think it shortsighted to say that they were executed merely for "infant baptism": no, it was much more fundamental than that. That was merely the cap-stone.
> 
> So, yes, I agree with the drowning of Anabaptist heretics.




---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

By the by, Zwingli was an outspoken critic of the merchantilization of warfare from Swiss soldiers. The Swiss men were hired out to fight other men's battles, and Zwingli was originally a chaplain with the Swiss mercinaries. After his conversion to the Reformed faith, he criticized those practices much, but he did not lose his compassion for the soldiers, nor his involvement with them; especially in fighting just wars. He didn't hide behind his pulpit, but went with his men, even to the death. That was his faith: that the Shepherd should be with his sheep in peace and in danger. If you don't admire that faith, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator] Time out. I'm closing this thread to give everyone a chance to look at the original post and decide whether or not they can limit themselves to a helpful, substantive, documented response to its question. If the answer is no, just stay on the sidelines. You can keep yourself occupied by meditating on this cartoon.[/Moderator]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CovenantalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear and add to what others have said the very first line of the *first* London Baptist Confession (1644) showed that the English Particular Baptists (now known more commonly identified in the modern era as Confessional Reformed Baptists or as the new regional Georgia association calls itself - Confessional Baptists) desired to express that they did *not* have a connection to Anabaptists and pointed instead to their heritage through the the Puritan/Separatist movement. The first line of the 1644 confession reads:
> 
> 
> 
> "A CONFESSION OF FAITH of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, *which are commonly, but unjustly,* called Anabaptists…"
> 
> 
> 
> Three of the original signatories of the 1644 confession also signed the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession the one that is still in daily use by Confessional Reformed Baptists like you find in some individual churches or 2nd LBCF subscription-based Associations like ARBCA today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. What is interesting is that both the first, and the second LBC, were actually remakes of Calvinist/Reformed documents. The 1689 confession of course, was taken from the Westminster confession, as everyone knows. What is not known by many, is that the First London confession was taken from the 1596 "True Confession", of the English Separatists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who needs a History lesson?
> 
> The 1644 is way before the 1646 WCF. It was a retaliation to some things that were leveled against the RBC or Particalar Baptists. You have a lot to learn. The Second was taken from the Savoy Declaration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend,
> 
> First, you have not read my post carefully. I stated the FIRST London Baptist Confession, came from the 1596 True Confession (_Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, pages 59-74, Walker, Williston. This was drafted by the Congregationalist Separatist Church, started by Johnson and Ainsworth (the names are from memory, so it might be incorrect.)
> 
> This confession was the model that the 1644 confession used (Baptist Confessions of Faith, by Lumpkin, William, 146.)
> 
> Now, in regards to the Second LBCF. You are wrong. Yes, the Savoy declaration was consulted as well. I was not trying to give a course on Baptist history. However, Elder William Collins used the Westminster, in addition to the Savoy, as his model (Lumpkin, 236). If you will turn your attention to the documents themselves, for but a moment, I can prove to you this unequivocal reality, straight from the source. I will give you several articles of each Confession to compare, showing word-for word agreement between the 2LBCF, and the WCF, AGAINST the Savoy declaration. I will go ahead and post one example in full.
> 
> WCF Chapter VI, article one, states (in part)..
> 
> "God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory."
> *
> The 2LBCF, same chapter and article, quotes this word for word. It is absent from the Savoy Declaration.*
> 
> Other articles after this model, include
> Chapter 10, article 3 ,
> Chapter 16, article 1,
> Chapter 18, Article 2,
> WCF Chapter 16, article 2, SDFO Chapter 17, article 2, 2LBCF Chapter 17 (or 18, depending on version) article 2,
> 
> To name but a few. In all of these instances, the LBCF and WCF have word-for-word agreement, disagreeing with the Savoy declaration.
> 
> _
Click to expand...

_

First off I was not arguing the point from what the 1644 was modeled after. 

I read your quotes and Lumpkin. 

If you take a look at this comparision chart between the Westminster, the Savoy, and the 1677, you will see the 1677 was more word for word with the Savoy, despite what Lumpkin said. It is by far more linked to the Savoy. 

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

It is color coded so you can see where they disagree and agree between the three documents. The 1677 is so more word for word and closer chapter and section parsing with the Savoy Declaration. I believe you will see this. I mean it is a lot more closer that there is no comparison. Lumpkin only makes the assertion on page 236._


----------



## Grillsy

I'm glad this thread has been reopened.


----------



## bug

Perhaps before we start using terms like 'murderer' etc we should consider that we live in an age very different to that of the Reformers and Anabaptists - will future generations of Christains look back at us and question our motives and actions in the way some are doing? What will they think? We are all creatures of our period of history, and as fallen creatures we all act in ways that mirror that culture all too often. Would any of us done half as well as the likes of Zwingli I wonder? Perhaps a little effort at understanding just what was a stake in these disputations might help as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The thread is open but let me remind people of something:

1. The question is why the _magisterial Reformeers_ considered the Anabaptists to be heretics.
2. This isn't a navel-gazing opportunity to discuss why you believe they were.
3. This isn't a debate about whether they were right.

Stick to the OP. Show some self-restraint and ability to actually interact with what the person asks help with.

If you want an answer to the question, I don't have the time to put it together but you can go here:

Search the Institutes

Search each book for "anabaptist" and you'll find some of the answers wrt Calvin.


----------



## Marrow Man

A couple of examples from Calvin:



> But since those frantic spirits of whom I have spoken attempt to rob the Church of this the only anchor of salvation, consciences must be more firmly strengthened against this pestilential opinion. The Novatians, in ancient times, agitated the Churches with this dogma, but in our day, not unlike the Novatians are some of the Anabaptists, who have fallen into the same delirious dreams. For they pretend that in Baptism, the people of God are regenerated to a pure and angelical life, which is not polluted by any carnal defilements. But if a man sin after baptism, they leave him nothing except the inexorable judgment of God. In short, to the sinner who has lapsed after receiving grace they give no hope of pardon, because they admit no other forgiveness of sins save that by which we are first regenerated. But although no falsehood is more clearly refuted by Scripture, yet as these men find means of imposition, (as Novatus also of old had very many followers), let us briefly slow how much they rave, to the destruction both of themselves and others. In the first place, since by the command of our Lord the saints daily repeat this prayer, "Forgive us our debts," (Mat 6: 12), they confess that they are debtors. Nor do they ask in vain; for the Lord has only enjoined them to ask what he will give. Nay, while he has declared that the whole prayer will be heard by his Father, he has sealed this absolution with a peculiar promise. What more do we wish? The Lord requires of his saints confession of sins during their whole lives, and that without ceasing, and promises pardon. How presumptuous, then, to exempt them from sin, or when they have stumbled, to exclude them altogether from grace? Then whom does he enjoin us to pardon seventy and seven times? Is it not our brethren? (Mat 18: 22). And why has he so enjoined but that we may imitate his clemency? He therefore pardons not once or twice only, but as often as, under a sense of our faults, we feel alarmed, and sighing call upon him. (ICR, 4.1.23).





> This [Augustine] says on account of the moroseness of the Donatists, who, when they saw faults in the Church which the bishops indeed rebuked verbally, but did not punish with excommunication, (because they did not think that any thing would be gained in this way), bitterly inveighed against the bishops as traitors to discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of Christ. Similar, in the present day, is the conduct of the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no assembly of Christ unless conspicuous in all respects for angelic perfection, under pretence of zeal overthrow every thing which tends to edification[6]. "Such, (says Augustin. contra Parmen. Lib. 3 c. 4), not from hatred of other men's iniquity, but zeal for their own disputes ensnaring the weak by the credit of their name, attempt to draw them entirely away, or at least to separate them; swollen with pride, raving with petulance insidious in calumny, turbulent in sedition. That it may not be seen how void they are of the light of truth, they cover themselves with the shadow of a stern severity: the correction of a brother's fault, which in Scripture is enjoined to be done with moderation, without impairing the sincerity of love or breaking the bond of peace, they pervert to sacrilegious schism and purposes of excision. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, (2Co 11: 14), when, under pretext of a just severity, he persuades to savage cruelty, desiring nothing more than to violate and burst the bond of unity and peace; because, when it is maintained, all his power of mischief is feeble, his wily traps are broken and his schemes of subversion vanish."(ICR, 4.12.12)



They were, in part, perceived to be schismatics similarly to the Novatians and Donatists (who would be considered heretics).


----------



## Grimmson

I am glad to see the thread reopened. I think Tim is correct in his assessment. I did want to clear an historical issue up that could be seen as misleading. In the context presented by Adam, polygamy wasn’t endorsed by at least one of the Anabaptist groups until about late-1534ish, long after Zwingli’s death. Therefore that should not have been added to Zwingli’s contextual reason against them. The Anabaptist were picking up steam in 1525, the rebellion, and 1526 was when Zwingli issued his drowning statement. We then need to remember that Luther, according to Peter Lillback’s audio series on church history, blamed Zwingli for the emergence of the Anabaptist. The added social church political pressure to religious schematic of the Anabaptist, topped with the rebellious nature against the State would have been reason enough for Zwingli’s declaration of a heretic’s death. The overall morality of Zwingli isn’t the issue here, and if one wants to discuss that I suggest starting another thread. 

Calvin’s and the later Luther’s (after 1534 -6) context of the Anabaptist would be different because of the increased sinful behavior of the Anabaptist; in which Adam’s list of context would better fit. I have noticed Calvin attacking the Anabaptist on the issue of polygamy, and joining Luther against the charismatic view and practice of Anabaptist revelation. Some of the early Anabaptist, like the Zwickau prophets and Melchior Hofmann, gave ammunition to the early Reformers by giving what was later proven in a short amount of time to be false prophecies. This, especially in Luther’s mind, gave reason for their declaration as heretics, along with other observable factors in practiced behavior and formal emerging beliefs.


----------



## Iconoclast

Some of us have read extensively concerning church history,some have not read as much. I can read and agree with John Knox warning against anabaptists and be in substantial agreement with most of it. Then I read someone else who speaks about anabaptists opposing Roman error,and being put to death. Then you read about reformers wanting to force things on anabaptists,and wanting to execute them, anabaptists drifting into error, reformers turning to theocratic ideas,etc.
I have a hard time coming to grips with an accurate timeline,although I have seen several suggested. Like the present day...I am glad that it is God alone who knows those who are His. God alone knows the heart motive of all who profess His name,and truth.
We are on sure ground in looking at recorded biblical redemptive history. I become un-easy at looking at church history after 70ad in that we start to view un-inspired writings.
I believe it is important to look at church history to learn of clear error,learn from it ,and avoid it's modern day counterpart.
Are you that confident of your view of church history that you can post some of what has been posted here? You have no doubts about what you have read in a history book, or if that history book was tainted by the writer's personal bias?


----------



## Poimen

Jon 316 said:


> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John



The _Belgic Confession_ identifies three errors that the Reformed opposed in the Anabaptist creed:

Article 18:


> we confess, against the heresy of the Anabaptists who deny that Christ assumed human flesh from his mother




Article 34:


> 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




Article 36:


> we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.



Obbe Philips recollects here: OBBEPHIL


----------



## Grimmson

Iconoclast said:


> Are you that confident of your view of church history that you can post some of what has been posted here? You have no doubts about what you have read in a history book, or if that history book was tainted by the writer's personal bias?


 
It is reasonable to place some level of doubt when one group representing a majority criticizes a minority group. That is why it is important to look at primary source material from the minority group that being criticized and compare it to the majority. It is also why it is important to look at different streams of criticism of different views, like Rome and the Reformers, against a group like the Anabaptist. The problem with history is that many times it is written with some level of bias that is meant to affect one’s interpretation, such as who the heroes and villain are. I can think of a few examples of this in church history. If there a shared criticism and reporting of the facts then the probability of the event taking place in the way it has been reported goes up. The problem is that there are people who manipulate the facts to write a history that best fits there agenda or set of beliefs to support their particular position. Some of the reports you need to take on faith and try to find other streams of comparative information, which is the job of an historian, so that he or she can tell an accurate story of the given account reasonably. Questions need to be asked, such as why did this person say that about another? Is there a power play involved? Is there money involved or some other personal gain involved? Is there a general concern for the truth? What the track record of these individuals in telling the truth? All questions, besides the sheer facts must be examined by the historian because of a care for seeking the truth. 

Example of one that could be used in this thread is concerning Zwingli against the Anabaptist. He wrote a work called the Against the Tricks of the Catabaptists. Zwingli tells a story of a group of men associated with Anabaptist wanting to commit adultery with the wife of a man named Figella. A man who supported the Anabaptist for some time, until there was sexual movement by some Anabaptist towards his wife. Now why does he tell this story, it has to do with a jump Zwingli makes from the Anabaptist holding things in common from the end of Acts 2 to the sharing the wives of each other carnally. Some may that that here we are seeing polygamy taking place, I would make the argument that what going on here is the seeds of polygamy taking place. Here what Zwingli I think sees is blatant adultery taking place, and not the one man several wives, polygamy, approach that we see later on in about 1534. It would be more likely comparable to the swingers of the 1970s within the context of marriage. Careful consideration needs to be examined on the “spiritual marriage” meaning of the Anabaptist group, a search for an accepted teaching of it by the localized group during the period the piece was written, and a list of offshoots of the local movement if needed. One needs to realize that sometimes when looking at history that a term may be applied not to distinguish from the offshoots of a main branch, but instead to lump them all together. Could Zwingli have some bias against them as a whole based on localized groups or members? I think the idea is possible. To use a bad analogy, it be like taking the bad theology of whoever your least favorite tradition or denomination is and applying that as being the representative of Protestant Theology to Rome across the board. It is for this reason I think we need to be careful of reformers claims and try to compare primary sources instead of being a bit one sided on the issue; which means we need to read primary texts so we can compare it to other primary texts and keep emotion or sympathy out of the equation. Dates must also be considered, because if we try to apply a thought or line of reasoning prior to the activity taking place then we have performed anachronistic lie and misrepresented the person or group’s history that being examined or placed into question. If we have some type of personal dog in the fight that can blur us to the reality of the truth. 

So in short try to understand the context of the specific local and broad context of the time and people that being examined. If one is teaching on a given subject primary texts must be examined, if one does not then that subject should not be taught. We have many of translated texts that can also for a careful examination of the facts, so one can’t use the lack of it as an excuse not to study Church History. If one sees a general agreement over the facts then it is probably safe to accept those facts as they stand. Be careful of works that try to rewrite generally accepted history. Always look at what their saying and quoting from. The only way you know history being rewritten though is if you are reading history books on that subject to begin with. 

Hopefully my thoughts and confidence help on this manner and stays in line with our topic here.


----------



## The Author of my Faith

*John Gerstner on Anabaptist*



Jon 316 said:


> So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.
> 
> Having studied at a baptist college, anabaptistswere generally seen in quite a positive light. They were heroes. In some ways seen to be precursors to the baptists.
> 
> I'm currently reading Luther's commentary on Galatians, only read chapter one thus far. However he takes many a swipe at the anabaptists without really explaining their position.
> 
> Can anyone shed some light?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> John


 


Handout Church History Teaching Series by Dr. John Gerstner | Watch and Listen to Reformed Theology Teaching Series at Ligonier.org

Here is a video of John Gerstner on the Anabaptists. Not an indepth teaching but just an FYI


----------



## Scott1

The linked video (#65) from Mr. Gerstner is very helpful in understanding background of this.


----------

