# Were there any Reformed Credobaptist?



## jason d

CLARIFICATION: Where there any Reformers who were credo-baptist?

If so, who? 

(Even though this is in the "Credo" only forum "Paedos" can answer too)


----------



## Prufrock

Jason, Zwingli seems to have been very temporarily lured by credo-only baptism, but that's about all you'll find. The Protestant Reformation was combating the Anabaptists just as much as it was fighting Rome, so the idea of being aligning yourself with Anabaptist practice would have been unthinkable. Protestant (not Anabaptist) Baptists as we know them descend from English Separatist Congregational churches in the early 1600s, about 100 years after the start of the Reformation.


----------



## bug

If you look amongst the radical reformers you would find a few, like Thomas Muntzer 1490-1525.


----------



## Bald_Brother

Well, a little late and more deeply in the English Reformation, Bunyan was a Baptist.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Honestly, haven't you people heard about the trail of blood?

KIDDING! KIDDING!

rat brains!


----------



## rbcbob

jason d said:


> CLARIFICATION: Where there any Reformers who were credo-baptist?
> 
> If so, who?
> 
> (Even though this is in the "Credo" only forum "Paedos" can answer too)



Jason, there were many Reformers who were what are now called credo-baptists.

*Conrad Grebel* 1498-1526 one-time associate of Zwingli

*George Blaurock* executed at the stake 1529

*Mennno Simons* 1496-1561 

*Felix Manz* 1490-1527 executed by drowning

The Zurich Council, recently reformed by Zwingli ordered the execution of the "heretics" who opposed infant baptism. It is not a coincidence that so many of them attained a better resurrection after the Council's ban in 1526.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

John Tombe


----------



## Prufrock

To all those who are listing Anabaptist men such as Grebel, Muntzer, etc., -- Yes, there were thousands of Anabaptists during the time of the Reformation. These men, however, were not _Protestant_ reformers. They stand outside Protestant Christianity. Credo-baptists who were within the realms of Christian orthodoxy did not arise until later.

Randy,

I didn't mention men such as Tombes, Smyth, etc., as they all belonged to a later period than the Reformation.


----------



## rbcbob

Prufrock said:


> To all those who are listing Anabaptist men such as Grebel, Muntzer, etc., -- Yes, there were thousands of Anabaptists during the time of the Reformation. These men, however, were not _Protestant_ reformers. They stand outside Protestant Christianity. Credo-baptists who were within the realms of Christian orthodoxy did not arise until later.
> 
> Randy,
> 
> I didn't mention men such as Tombes, Smyth, etc., as they all belonged to a later period than the Reformation.



I have to disagree. The historical record shows that such men as Manz, Grebel, Blaurock, Simons and many others initially made common cause with Luther and Zwingli. Such men corresponded with paedobaptist reformers and were initially well received.


----------



## bug

Prufrock said:


> To all those who are listing Anabaptist men such as Grebel, Muntzer, etc., -- Yes, there were thousands of Anabaptists during the time of the Reformation. These men, however, were not _Protestant_ reformers. They stand outside Protestant Christianity. Credo-baptists who were within the realms of Christian orthodoxy did not arise until later.



To be pedantic, the OP asked; 



> Where there any Reformers who were credo-baptist?



Not 'where there any _Protestant_Reformers who were credo-baptist?' 

The very fact that they were credobaptist excluded these men from unity with the likes of Zwingli, Luther and Calvin, in the end, however I would suggest that they were still part of the reformation, and indeed the radical reformers were one major tractectory of the reformation.


----------



## Prufrock

Jonathan, yes, I realize the OP asked that. I imagined, however, (and perhaps wrongly) that information concerning Anabaptist radicals or the Romanist folks of the Counter-Reformation were not what was being sought, but rather information concerning Credo-baptists who stand in the Protestant tradition. 

Also, it was _much_ more than their credobaptist beliefs which excluded them from the Protestants.


----------



## Prufrock

rbcbob said:


> I have to disagree. The historical record shows that such men as Manz, Grebel, Blaurock, Simons and many others initially made common cause with Luther and Zwingli. Such men corresponded with paedobaptist reformers and were initially well received.



Sure, they initially tried. That's not in question. The simple fact is, however, the two movements were going in very different directions, and this was a result of a whole lot more than baptism.


----------



## rbcbob

Prufrock said:


> Jonathan, yes, I realize the OP asked that. I imagined, however, (and perhaps wrongly) that information concerning Anabaptist radicals or the Romanist folks of the Counter-Reformation were not what was being sought, but rather information concerning Credo-baptists who stand in the Protestant tradition.
> 
> *Also, it was much more than their credobaptist beliefs which excluded them from the Protestants.*




True, what caused their pulling out of the reformation was primarily Luther and Zwingli viewing _The Church_ (similarly to Roman Catholics at the time) as being *coextensive* with _The State_.


----------



## bug

Indeed it was, I agree, they were seperated by many things, as indeed were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin et al, as well 

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. However the history of the reformation is not as simple as making clear divisions between the Lutheran reformers, Calvinistic reformers, radical reformers, (counter reformers) and the humanist reformers like (d'Etaples and Erasmus). Often the lines are blurred between these groupings in various ways. In my opinion these are all trajectories of the reformation, at times there was more unity between many of these men, and at times less. I simply wish to point out that the reformation was more then just Calvinistic theologians


----------



## Prufrock

Jonathan, there is a vast dissimilitude between differences _within_ a movement, and difference _between movements_. Whatever individual differences Zwingli may have had with Bucer, or Bullinger with Calvin -- they all consciously understood themselves as standing within the same faith. There was no such awareness between the Reformed and the Anabaptists, or the Lutherans and the Anabaptists. In fact, they were self-consciously set _against_ one another. I might suggest reading some of Bullinger's letters to various city councils on how to deal with the Anabaptists, or the treatises which he wrote against them. It was a different sort of struggle than what the Swiss churches had with the Lutherans.

The Strasbourg church may have been a bit overly lenient at times, especially due to the a-bit-overly irenic character of men such as Capito, but this should not be taken as normative. There also were, indeed, men of great Christian character and virtue among some of the early Anabaptists; but this should not be taken as a token of orthodoxy or acceptance of the movement.


----------



## bug

Prufrock said:


> Jonathan, there is a vast dissimilitude between differences _within_ a movement, and difference _between movements_. Whatever individual differences Zwingli may have had with Bucer, or Bullinger with Calvin -- they all consciously understood themselves as standing within the same faith. There was no such awareness between the Reformed and the Anabaptists, or the Lutherans and the Anabaptists. In fact, they were self-consciously set _against_ one another. I might suggest reading some of Bullinger's letters to various city councils on how to deal with the Anabaptists, or the treatises which he wrote against them. It was a different sort of struggle than what the Swiss churches had with the Lutherans.
> 
> The Strasbourg church may have been a bit overly lenient at times, especially due to the a-bit-overly irenic character of men such as Capito, but this should not be taken as normative. There also were, indeed, men of great Christian character and virtue among some of the early Anabaptists; but this should not be taken as a token of orthodoxy or acceptance of the movement.



I don't want folk to make more of my case then I am doing  all I am saying is that these were all, by definition, reformers, and to limit the term 'reformer' only to those within our own trajectory of the reformation is in my opinion incorrect. Nothing more, nothing less


----------



## Marrow Man

Moderator Warning:

The OP wants to know if any of the Reformers were credo-baptists. This thread is not intended to degenerate into a discussion of credo v. paedo positions, but the historical question raised in the OP.


----------



## Herald

bug said:


> In my opinion these are all trajectories of the reformation, at times there was more unity between many of these men, and at times less.



That is an interesting statement. Much like we categorize theonomy, big T or little t, perhaps the same can be said of the Reformation. It strains credulity to suggest that the immediate generation of Luther's Reformation was overwhelmingly populated with anything but paedobaptists. Afterall, the disagreements with Rome were not predominatly over the sacraments. The non-anaptist credobaptists, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, came on the scene at a later date. This is where the small "r" of the Reformation comes into play. It can be argued that the pond ripples of Wittenberg came to incorporate Baptists in due time. From a credo perspective it should have little impact as to whether our Baptist forefathers can trace themselves to 1517. Reformed thought did not end with the passing of the early Reformers. If it did what does that say about the Reformation credo of Semper Reformanda? If we expand the impact of the historical context, can't we say that we continue in the same spirit of the Reformation; always reforming?


----------



## bug

I would say though it is perhaps anachronistic, to suggests that we should define a reformer by how closely they align with a confession written after they them . For a start it would exclude all the Lutheran reformers


----------



## KMK

Paul, what is the 'official' beginning and ending of the Reformation and is it the same for Germany, England and Holland etc?


----------



## Prufrock

Ken, I'm not sure there is literally "an official beginning" or end of the Reformation, especially considering that it was not a uniform event, but was spread widely across Europe. In general, we could say that in Germany it had its beginnings in Wittenburg circa 1517/1518, and that it began in Switzerland with the Zurich reforms in the early 1520s. As far as the termination of the period, one could theoretically put forth any number of times, e.g., The Council of Trent, or perhaps the deaths of the generation of the first codifiers of the Protestant system and the transition to the period of early orthodoxy.

When it comes to the English church, there is obviously going to a different set of answers, since (realistically speaking) they weren't reforming the Roman church, but the English church.


----------



## Herald

Prufrock said:


> Ken, I'm not sure there is literally "an official beginning" or end of the Reformation, especially considering that it was not a uniform event, but was spread widely across Europe. In general, we could say that in Germany it had its beginnings in Wittenburg circa 1517/1518, and that it began in Switzerland with the Zurich reforms in the early 1520s. As far as the termination of the period, one could theoretically put forth any number of times, e.g., The Council of Trent, or perhaps the deaths of the generation of the first codifiers of the Protestant system and the transition to the period of early orthodoxy.
> 
> When it comes to the English church, there is obviously going to a different set of answers, since (realistically speaking) they weren't reforming the Roman church, but the English church.



Paul, this precisely my point. The Reformation may very well have had eddys and under-currents that make a definitive end date difficult to ascertain. See my previous post.


----------



## Skyler

So just to summarize then, the Anabaptists(and a few random heretics here and there) were about the only ones in the earlier stages of the Reformation who practiced credobaptism, correct?


----------



## Prufrock

Bill, I believe that I am basically in full agreement with that previous post of yours. Just so long as, in our acknowledgment (_on a theological level_) that we are always reforming we do not forget that, _on an historical level_, there was a period called the Reformation, which has passed. Even as we not say that, though we find ourselves continually drawn back to the sources of Classical learning, we are still in The Renaissance, so from an historic perspective we need to acknowledge that the Reformation period did, in fact, end. Otherwise we open ourselves up to anyone's reinterpretation of what constitutes Reformation-era theology and practice.


----------



## Prufrock

Skyler said:


> So just to summarize then, the Anabaptists(and a few random heretics here and there) were about the only ones in the earlier stages of the Reformation who practiced credobaptism, correct?



Correct.


----------



## Herald

Paul, so one question is when did the Reformation era end? Is it possible that the Reformation era can be divided into stages? As with any major religious or philosophical camp there are the founders, proponents, and apologists. It sometimes takes generations for these to have impact.


----------



## Skyler

Herald said:


> Paul, so one question is when did the Reformation era end? Is it possible that the Reformation era can be divided into stages? As with any major religious or philosophical camp there are the founders, proponents, and apologists. It sometimes takes generations for these to have impact.



It seems to me this is a question best answered in a history book of a few hundred pages, not a forum post.


----------



## Prufrock

Bill, this would be the point when I would have to exit, as I would not have anything worth saying. In the course of the discussion which would follow, I don't think I'm intelligent enough to discern when I would be saying something with actual substance, or when I would just be playing word games. For instance, one could argue that what we're _really_ talking about is not "The Reformation," but rather something broader: "The Restoration and Establishment of the True Church." The Reformation, then, could be that first step (the founders) you mentioned, the period of orthodoxy would be the proponents, and we'd be the apologists. I can say that, but I don't really believe it to mean anything; and I fear that's what any input I have would amount to -- Sorry!

In general, _a_ traditional pattern sees the period of Reform, followed by a period of initial codification of Reformation thought (e.g., Calvin, Musculus, Vermigli, etc), followed by early, high and late orthodoxy, etc. This is the pattern in which I think. I'm open to someone showing a better paradigm.


----------



## ericknowsChrist

Excellent thread! Thank you all!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just in case this might come up again... I made a blog about whether Credo Baptist were truly reformed or not. If we are speaking in those terms there were no Credo's that were Reformed.

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology - The PuritanBoard


----------



## eqdj

@Jason

I think Martin's blog post is a good read on this topic.

I think we have to answer "Who are The Reformers?" first. What is a requirement to being a "Reformer"? Calvinistic? Covenantal? Church-State Religion? Paedobaptist? What makes one a Reformer?

Also, Reformed Baptist Erroll Hulse claims the Anabaptists as forefathers, thinks the name is derogatory and should be changed to just "Baptists". While Reformed Baptist Tom Nettles does not claim the Anabaptists as forefathers, but starts with Smyth. So there is some disagreement there. 



-----Added 9/7/2009 at 09:31:41 EST-----

What's up with everyone's lack of compliance to the PB's signature requirements?


> Signature Requirements
> All members of the Puritanboard must have a minimal "signature" in their User Control Panel that includes the following items:
> 
> First Name (or nickname)
> Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
> Denominational Affiliation
> State of Residence


----------



## rbcbob

> What's up with everyone's lack of compliance to the PB's signature requirements?



They tweeked it today. Your full signature will appear only in your first post to each thread.


----------



## Brian Withnell

Thought that might be the case ... it was looking like this all over. Only pain it causes is when your first post is on a different page than the page of the first unread.


----------



## Particular Baptist

There is very strong evidence to believe that John Wycliffe was credo. The Martyrs Mirror, first published in Dutch in 1660, states that in 1370 Wycliffe issued an article “declared to militate against infant baptism” (p. 322). Another famous reformer, William Tyndale, might have been credo as well. 

History of the Baptists


----------



## jason d

Thanks all, this is very helpful.


----------



## Mayflower

bug said:


> If you look amongst the radical reformers you would find a few, like Thomas Muntzer 1490-1525.



Munzer, beyond doubt, was a Lutheran. There is positive proof, though he sometimes "played tricks with the sacraments," that *he was never a Baptist *(Erbkam, Geschichte der protestantischen Sekten, 494). *Possibly he denied at one time the necessity of infant baptism, but he practiced that rite to the end of his life*. There is no proof that he was ever rebaptized or in any way was ever connected with the Baptist movement. "He was not baptized," says Frank, "as I am trustworthily informed" (Frank, Chronik, 493b). 

In the year 1523 he put forth a book for the direction of God's service (Munzer, Ordnung und berechnung des Teutschen, 6), and in this book he prescribes infant baptism. In 1525, in a letter to Oecolampadius he defends infant baptism and held to its practice (Herzog, Das Leben Job. Oekolampads, I. 302. Basel, 1843). That he was never a Baptist is quite plain (Sekendorf, Historia Lutheranismi, I. 192; II 13). Frank says: "*He himself never baptized, as I am credibly informed" (Frank, Chronik, clxxiiib), and adds he was never a Baptist*. With this statement modern scholars agree (Marshall, The Baptists. The Encyclopedia Britannica, III.370, Cambridge, 1910). 

*It may be concluded that Munzer was a follower and friend of Luther; he practiced infant baptism to the close of his life; he was never in the practice of Anabaptism; he was opposed by the Baptist leaders; held doctrinal views radically different from the Baptists on the use of the sword; and he was never intimately associated with the Baptists.*

A History of the Baptists, John T. Christian | The Reformed Reader


----------



## bug

Mayflower, 

Thanks for your correction, I will look into it as best I can. I am no expert on Muntzer. I believe Bullinger claimed that Muntzer was the first anabpatist about 35 years after his death. Didn't the Hutterian Anabptists claim him as one of their forefathers as well? This is where my statements came from

From what I have read I am fairly sure that Muntzer alienated himself from lutheranism though, his polemical works against the Wittenburg reformers, and Luther would suggest that  see for example in Chapter 23 of Reformation Theologians by Gottfried Seebas


----------

