# 3 Forms of Unity and Anabaptist?



## Coram Deo (Sep 25, 2007)

I am curious? The 3 Belgic Confession speaks pretty harshly of Anabaptist. Was it only because of baptism or was it because of other beliefs that the Dutch Church considered heresy?

I know the Anabaptist movement was not unified in doctrine and some contained problems like semi-Pelaganism and others unitarianism and yet others communism, etc... So was it because of these other sects within Anabaptism that Anabaptism was condemned or was it only for baptism.......

What would the authors of the Belgic Confession view a 1689 Confessionial Baptist or in other words a Reformed Baptist who held to orthodox views of the church?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 25, 2007)

Adopted by a Swiss Brethren Conference, February 24, 1527
Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God concerning Seven Articles

The articles which we discussed and on which we were of one mind are these:

1. Baptism;
2. The Ban (Excommunication);
3. Breaking of Bread;
4. Separation from the Abomination;
5. Pastors in the Church;
6. The Sword;
7. The Oath. 

I. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the Pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Matt. 28, Mark 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance.

II. We are agreed as follows on the ban: The ban shall be employed with all those who have given themselves to the Lord, to walk in His commandments, and with all those who are baptized into the one body of Christ and who are called brethren or sisters, and yet who slip sometimes and fall into error and sin, being inadvertently overtaken. The same shall be admonished twice in secret and the third time openly disciplined or banned according to the command of Christ. Matt. 18. But this shall be done according to the regulation of the Spirit (Matt. 5) before the breaking of bread, so that we may break and eat one bread, with one mind and in one love, and may drink of one cup.

III. In the breaking of bread we are of one mind and are agreed (as follows): All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and all who wish to drink of one drink as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, shall be united beforehand by baptism in one body of Christ which is the church of God and whose Head is Christ. For as Paul points out, we cannot at the same time drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the devil. That is, all those who have fellowship with the dead works of darkness have no part in the light. Therefore all who follow the devil and the world have no part with those who are called unto God out of the world. All who lie in evil have no part in the good.

Therefore it is and must be (thus): Whoever has not been called by one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God's church, cannot be made (into) one bread with them, as indeed must be done if one is truly to break bread according to the command of Christ.

IV. We are agreed (as follows) on separation: A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them (the wicked) and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.

To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters.

He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them.

From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all Catholic and Protestant works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the oaths sworn in unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.

Therefore there will also unquestionably fall from us the unchristian, devilish weapons of force - such as sword, armor and the like, and all their use (either) for friends or against one's enemies - by virtue of the Word of Christ. Resist not (him that is) evil.

V. We are agreed as follows on pastors in the church of God: The pastor in the church of God shall, as Paul has prescribed, be one who out-and-out has a good report of those who are outside the faith. This office shall be to read, to admonish and teach, to warn, to discipline, to ban in the church, to lead out in prayer for the advancement of all the brethren and sisters, to lift up the bread when it is to be broken, and in all things to see to the care of the body of Christ, in order that it may be built up and developed, and the mouth of the slanderer be stopped.

This one moreover shall be supported of the church which has chosen him, wherein he may be in need, so that he who serves the Gospel may live of the Gospel as the Lord has ordained. But if a pastor should do something requiring discipline, he shall not be dealt with except (on the testimony of) two or three witnesses. And when they sin they shall be disciplined before all in order that the others may fear.

But should it happen that through the cross this pastor should be banished or led to the Lord (through martyrdom) another shall be ordained in his place in the same hour so that God's little flock and people may not be destroyed.

VI. We are agreed as follows concerning the sword: The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards and protects the good. In the Law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death, and the same (sword) is (now) ordained to be used by the worldly magistrates.

In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death - simply the warning and the command to sin no more.

Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize (this as) the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love.

Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban.

Secondly, it will be asked concerning the sword, whether a Christian shall pass sentence in worldly disputes and strife such as unbelievers have with one another. This is our united answer. Christ did not wish to decide or pass judgment between brother and brother in the case of the inheritance, but refused to do so. Therefore we should do likewise.

Thirdly, it will be asked concerning the sword, Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is as follows: They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus shall we do as He did, and follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness. For He Himself says, He who wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. Also, He Himself forbids the (employment of) the force of the sword saying, The worldly princes lord it over them, etc., but not so shall it be with you. Further, Paul says, Whom God did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, etc. Also Peter says, Christ has suffered (not ruled) and left us an example, that ye should follow His steps.

Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian's is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christian's are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian's citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian's weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God. In brief, as in the mind of God toward us, so shall the mind of the members of the body of Christ be through Him in all things, that there may be no schism in the body through which it would be destroyed. For every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed. Now since Christ is as it is written of Him, His members must also be the same, that His body may remain complete and united to its own advancement and upbuilding.

VII. We are agreed as follows concerning the oath: The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God's Name, but only in truth, not falsely. Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His (followers), whether true or false - neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our head - and that for the reason He shortly thereafter gives, For you are not able to make one hair white or black. So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden: we cannot fulfill that which we promise when we swear, for we cannot change (even) the very least thing on us.

Now there are some who do not give credence to the simple command of God, but object with this question: Well now, did not God swear to Abraham by Himself (since He was God) when He promised him that He would be with him and that He would be his God if he would keep His commandments, - why then should I not also swear when I promise to someone? Answer: Hear what the Scripture says: God, since He wished more abundantly to show unto the heirs the immutability of His counsel, inserted an oath, that by two immutable things (in which it is impossible for God to lie) we might have a strong consolation. Observe the meaning of this Scripture: What God forbids you to do, He has power to do, for everything is possible for Him. God swore an oath to Abraham, says the Scripture, so that He might show that His counsel is immutable. That is, no one can withstand nor thwart His will; therefore He can keep His oath. But we can do nothing, as is said above by Christ, to keep or perform (our oaths): therefore we shall not swear at all (nichts schweren).

Then others further say as follows: It is not forbidden of God to swear in the New Testament, when it is actually commanded in the Old, but it is forbidden only to swear by heaven, earth, Jerusalem and our head. Answer: Hear the Scripture, He who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by Him who sitteth thereon. Observe: it is forbidden to swear by heaven, which is only the throne of God: how much more is it forbidden (to swear) by God Himself! Ye fools and blind, which is greater, the throne or Him that sitteth thereon?

Further some say, Because evil is now (in the world, and) because man needs God for (the establishment of) the truth, so did the apostles Peter and Paul also swear. Answer: Peter and Paul only testify of that which God promised to Abraham with the oath. They themselves promise nothing, as the example indicates clearly. Testifying and swearing are two different things. For when a person swears he is in the first place promising future things, as Christ was promised to Abraham. Whom we a long time afterwards received. But when a person bears testimony he is testifying about the present, whether it is good or evil, as Simeon spoke to Mary about Christ and testified, Behold this (child) is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against.

Christ also taught us along the same line when He said, Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. He says, Your speech or word shall be yea and nay. (However) when one does not wish to understand, he remains closed to the meaning. Christ is simply Yea and Nay, and all those who seek Him simply will understand His Word. Amen.

The Seven Articles of Schleitheim
Canton Schaffhausen, Switzerland,
February 24, 1527


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 25, 2007)

dordrecht confession of faith


Declaration of Several People Called Anabaptists | The Reformed Reader

ridemann's rechenschaft

discipline of the church

Waldenses Confessions of Faith


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 25, 2007)

The author of the Belgic Confession, Guido de Bres, wrote a massive work against the Anabaptists, _La Racine, Source et Fondement des Anabaptistes_ (The Root, Source and Foundation of the Anabaptists). In this work, he outlines the major problems the Reformed had with the 16th century Anabaptists. Baptism was just one of many major issues. Let me provide you with an outline of _La Racine_:

Book 1 -- deals with the historical origins of the movement. This part of the book has been translated into English.

Book 2 -- deals with the errors of the Anabaptists with respect to the incarnation of Christ. This is by far the largest section. 

Book 3 -- combats the errors of the ABs with respect to the baptism of infants (which is ordained by God, acc. to GdB) and the rebaptism ordained by men (contrary to the law of God).

Book 4 -- deals with the authority of the civil magistrate. (very short section)

Book 5 -- the swearing of oaths (also very short)

Book 6 -- deals with Anabaptist errors with respect to the human soul (also short).

I think it's fair to say that the biggest concern of the Reformed with the Anabaptists was their aberrant Christology. This is reflected in Article 18 of the Belgic Confession, "Contrary to the heresy of the Anabaptists..."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 25, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> The author of the Belgic Confession, Guido de Bres, wrote a massive work against the Anabaptists, _La Racine, Source et Fondement des Anabaptistes_ (The Root, Source and Foundation of the Anabaptists). In this work, he outlines the major problems the Reformed had with the 16th century Anabaptists. Baptism was just one of many major issues. Let me provide you with an outline of _La Racine_:
> 
> Book 1 -- deals with the historical origins of the movement. This part of the book has been translated into English.
> 
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 25, 2007)

Thank you for that list.. Is this work available to read?

Also could you elaborate on the anabaptist Christology? What did it consist of?

What was their view regarding the human soul?





Guido's Brother said:


> Book 6 -- deals with Anabaptist errors with respect to the human soul (also short).
> 
> I think it's fair to say that the biggest concern of the Reformed with the Anabaptists was their aberrant Christology. This is reflected in Article 18 of the Belgic Confession, "Contrary to the heresy of the Anabaptists..."


----------



## Guido's Brother (Sep 26, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Thank you for that list.. Is this work available to read?
> 
> Also could you elaborate on the anabaptist Christology? What did it consist of?
> 
> What was their view regarding the human soul?



As far as I know, the original 1565 book is very difficult to find. The Royal Library of the Netherlands has a copy and perhaps there are some other copies floating around. I have a bound photocopy of a microfiche of the copy in the Dutch Royal Library. A couple of libraries in North America have microfiches of this work, including the Hekman Library at Calvin College and the library at the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches.

The English translation of the first part of _La Racine_ is also available on microfiche at the Hekman Library. 

The most significant error of the Anabaptist Christology is the one mentioned in the Belgic Confession, namely the denial of Christ's assumption of human flesh from his mother. According to de Bres, this led to difficulties with confessing Christ as true God and true man, true Son of God and true Son of man. In other words, they tried to reinvent the Christological wheel, ignoring the struggles of the early church on these questions. Among other things, some of them also denied that the virgin Mary was from the line of David, thus also drawing into question Christ's claim to be the Son of David, despite all the Scriptural evidence to the contrary. I could go on, but I think that gives you a taste.

With respect to the soul, de Bres notes that the Anabaptists are not in agreement among themselves on this point. But at least some of them denied the immortality of the soul, holding that unbelievers fall asleep after death and are then annihilated at the resurrection. I think this is why the Belgic Confession insists in Article 37, "The wicked will be convicted by the testimony of their own consciences _and will become immortal_, but only to be tormented in the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."


----------



## Amazing Grace (Sep 26, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Thank you for that list.. Is this work available to read?
> 
> Also could you elaborate on the anabaptist Christology? What did it consist of?
> 
> ...



Here you go.... The Racovian Catechism...

OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF Christ
CHAP. I TOUCHING THE PERSON OF Christ


Q. Inasmuch as you have said that those things have been discovered by Jesus Christ, that concern the will of God as it properly belongeth unto them, who shall obtain eternal life, I would entreat you to declare those things to me concerning Jesus Christ, which are needfull to be known.

A. I am content. First therefore you must know that those things partly concern the Essence7 partly the Office of Jesus Christ.

Q. What are the things that concern his Essence or Person?

A. Only that he is a true man by nature, as the holy Scriptures frequently testify concerning that matter, and namely, I Tim. 2.5. There is one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. And I Cor. 15.21. Since by man came death, by man also came the Resurrection from the dead. And indeed such a one God heretofore promised by the Prophets, and such a one the Apostles Creed, acknowledged by all Christians, confesseth Jesus Christ to be.

Q. Is the Lord Jesus then a meer man?

A. By no means. For he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, and therefore is from his very conception and birth the Son of God, as we read, Luke 1.35. where the Angel thus speaketh to the Virgin Mary, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also that Holy Thing Generated shall be called the Son of God. That I may omit other causes, which you shall afterwards discover in the Person of Jesus Christ, and most evidently shew, that the Lord Jesus ought by no means to be reputed a meer man.

Q. You said a little before that the Lord Jesus is a man by nature, hath he not also a divine Nature?

A. At no hand; for that is repugnant not onely to sound Reason, but also to the holy Scriptures.

Q. Shew me how it is repugnant to sound Reason.

A. First, because two substances indued with opposite properties, cannot combine into one Person, and such properties are mortality and immortality; to have beginning, and to be without beginning; to be mutable, and immutable. Again, two Natures, each whereof is apt to constitute a severall person, cannot be huddled into one Person. For instead of one, there must of necessity arise two persons, & consequently become two Christs, whom all men without controversie acknowledge to be one, and his Person one.

Q. But when they alledge that Christ is so constituted of a divine and humane Nature, as a man is of a body and soul, what answer must we make to them?

A. That in this case there is a wide difference; for they say that the two Natures in Christ are so united that Christ is both Cod and Man. Whereas the soul and body in a man are so conjoyned as that a man is neither soul nor body. For neither doth the soul nor the body severally constitute a Person. But as the divine Nature doth by it self constitute a Person, so must the humane by it self of necessity also constitute.

Q. Shew how it is also repugnant to the Scripture that Christ should have a divine Nature.

A. First, because the Scripture proposeth to us but one God by nature, whom we formerly demonstrated to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture witnesseth that Jesus Christ is a man by nature, as was formerly shewn. Thirdly, because whatsoever divine excellency Christ hath, the Scripture testifieth that he hath it by gift of the Father. John 3.35. John 5. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27. John 10.25. John 13.3. John 14.10. Acts 2.33. Rev. 2.26, 27. 2 Pet. 1.17. Finally, because the Scripture doth most evidently shew, that Jesus Christ doth perpetually ascribe all his Divine acts not to himself, or any Divine nature of his own, but to the Father; who seeth not that such a Divine nature as the Adversaries imagine in Christ, would have been altogether idle, and of no use?…

Q. I perceive that Christ hath not a divine nature, but is a true man, now tell me of what avail unto Salvation the knowledge hereof will be?

A. From the knowledge of this, that Christ is a true man, a sure and well grounded confirmation of our hope doth follow, which by the contrary opinion is exceedingly shaken, and almost taken away.

Q. How so?

A. Because it followeth from the adverse opinion, that Christ is not a true man, for since they deny that there is in Christ the person of a man, who seeth that they with one and the same labour deny him to be a true man, in that he cannot be a true man, who wanteth the person of a man, but if Christ had not been a true man, he could not die, and consequently not rise again from the dead, whereby our hope which resteth on the resurrection of Christ, as on a firm basis, and foundation, may be easily shaken, and well nigh thrown down, but that opinion, which acknowledgeth Christ to be a true man, who conversing in the world, was obedient to the Father, even unto death, doth assert, and clearly determine that the same died, and was by God raised from the dead, and indued with immortality, and so in a wonderful manner, supporteth, and proppeth, our hope concerning eternall life, setting before our eyes the very image of that thing, and assuring us thereby, as it were with a pledge, that we also though we be mortall and die; shall notwithstanding in due time rise from death, to come into the society of the same blessed immortality, whereof he is made par-taker if we tread in his steps…


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 2, 2007)

Guido's Brother said:


> With respect to the soul, de Bres notes that the Anabaptists are not in agreement among themselves on this point. But at least some of them denied the immortality of the soul, holding that unbelievers fall asleep after death and are then annihilated at the resurrection. I think this is why the Belgic Confession insists in Article 37, "The wicked will be convicted by the testimony of their own consciences _and will become immortal_, but only to be tormented in the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."



On this point, it also worth noting John Calvin's (who was married to an ex-Anabaptist) first theological treatise, _Psychopannychia_. There is an English study of his treatise here.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Oct 2, 2007)

There are some useful links worth exploring in-depth, see here (please scroll).


----------

