Anabaptism Today! Quote

[Gesetveemet]

Anabaptism Today!


David J. Engelsma, The Sixteenth-Century Reformation of the Church, p. 63:


It is, however, the urgency of the conflict of the Reformed faith with Anabaptism in our day that needs to be sounded and appreciated. If one thinks only of the physical descendants of the Anabaptists, the Hutterites in South Dakota and the Amish in Indiana, he will regard the notion of a conflict as nonsense. But let him consider that the spiritual descendants of the Anabaptists dominate the American religious scene. Non-Roman Catholic religion in America is overwhelmingly Anabaptist. It rejects infant baptism; the covenant; total depravity; justification by faith alone; and sovereign, gracious predestination. Its gospel is salvation by free will and good works. It is anti-doctrinal and anti-confessional. It spurns the unity of the church as manifested in a denomination. It is individualistic; experience-centered; and millennial, dreaming the Anabaptist dream of the thousand-year, carnal reign of Christ on earth.

There is even in some quarters the surfacing of the latent Anabaptist characteristic of revolution. The latter-day Anabaptists are willing to resort to force against the state over their church-schools, over abortion, and over other laws that they judge oppressive and unjust.

There churches call themselves evangelical or fundamentalist. In fact, they are Anabaptist.

The preachers who are the successors of Carlstadt, Muntzer, Grebel, Hutter, and Joris are Billy Graham, Jack Hyles, Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, Bill Hybels, and the entire charismatic swarm.

In one of history's ironies, the Anabaptists who once skulked in woods and fields, the outlaws of society, now worship in huge cathedrals and command the attention, and even deference, of the [American] president.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Here is a Reformed Baptist view of the anabaptists FYI The Anabaptists and the Reformation

 

[Herald]

Here is a Reformed Baptist view of the anabaptists FYI The Anabaptists and the Reformation

Stephen, excellent Reformed Baptist summation on Anabaptists. Thank you.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Stephen, excellent Reformed Baptist summation on Anabaptists. Thank you.

My pleasure Bill.

It is important our paedobaptist friends are aware that Reformed Baptists are NOT anabaptists. They have a different lineage.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

From something I recently sent to a friend: an interesting "socio-spiritual-historical analysis" of the state of the church in America; and this indicates some of the complexity involved:

From (near the end of) the thread, What is the Authentic New Testament Text?

A few comments on Ted Letis’ essay on “Anabaptists” in The Ecclesiastical Text. Historically very interesting; after giving some history of the Anabaptist turmoil in Europe, he says,​

All of Europe now knew one direction in which this “Reformation” of the Church might go. Christian Europe, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, consolidated in resisting this restorationist Christianity. (fn. 28: Both Roman Catholic and Protestant troops marched into Münster in order to restore order…)

The Protestants saw the wisdom of retaining an official Church/State connection to assure the preservation both of social order, but also for the preservation of the integrity of the now renewed Church and the promise of a renewed Christendom.

Those who would have nothing to do with the state-established forms of this renewed catholic orthodoxy (whether it be the Calvinism established in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland; or the now Reformed Anglicanism of England; or the Lutheranism of Germany and the Scandinavian countries), now fled to the haven of religious freedom in the New World—colonial America.

America: A Haven for the Schwärmerei [German for “enthusiasts” – read “fanatics” – per Letis]

In time, this new republic broke free from all formal political connections with old Christendom….They determined that the Christian religion would be, for the first time in the history of the Christian West, disestablished and regarded as, at best, just an option within the boundaries of this post-Enlightenment state. The result was the development of a truly Anabaptist religious culture…

Giving vent to such populist, democratic tendencies, America now became the breeding ground for every independent religious impulse conceivable to human consciousness. A cocktail of cults now bubbled up from the cauldron of this state without a religion…

Every ancient heresy was now given state sanction…

Not only did the Reformation faiths never really flourish in the United States (but perhaps for a brief moment in New England), even the Roman Catholic Church in time eventually took on more of the appearance of a large democratic lodge rather than the most autocratic institution in the modern world.

The New Schwärmerei: Fundamentalism

Cut off from the archetype of ancient catholic orthodoxy, America invented its own orthodoxy—Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was a synthesis: an Enlightenment reductionism to the essence of Christianity expressed in a handful of propositions regarding what must be believed to be a Christian, married to elaborate theories regarding the second Advent of Christ. Finally, this was all clothed in a Scottish Common-Sense apologetic appeal to empiricism as an absolute guarantor of external verification.

Since there was no longer the possibility of appealing to the catholic witness of the Church for certification of the Christian religion, appeal was now made to science.

Furthermore, now that everyone had their own designer religion, reflecting their own socio-economic and cultural concerns and values, it was just a matter of time before free-market forces provided each major group with their own designer Bibles to reinforce their given perspectives.​

[end Letis]
------

I have neglected to provide the copious footnotes with citations supporting his various points, as at times they take up more of the page than the text!

Interesting socio-spiritual historical analysis. This reminds me precisely of Frank Schaeffer’s critique of America and its religion in his book documenting and justifying his move from his dad’s Presbyterian faith to the Eastern Orthodox Church in Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994). Frank Schaeffer speaking:

"A study of Church history shows that Protestant worship, as it is usually practiced today, bears almost no resemblance to the sacramental worship of the entire Church for the better part of two thousand years in both the East and West. This is not a theological opinion, much less a moral judgment , but simply a statement of historical fact. The Church’s practices are well documented…

"In comparison to the ancient liturgical worship of the historical Church, even the so-called liturgical Protestant denominations, like the Lutherans and Episcopalians (and tragically, many Americanized Roman Catholic parishes) have left behind their respect for Apostolic authority." (pp. 7-9)

They could be brothers in many respects; and I could concur with David Cloud that Ted Letis may have gone to the Orthodox church, had he lived longer. Sometimes the Lord takes us away “early” to protect us “from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1), which may come from our own hearts.

But the historical analysis is fascinating to me. There surely is something to it. Letis – and Schaeffer more so – see it as bad. It does make a lot of American life – especially church life – clearer. Would I want to be under a State church, even a Presbyterian or Reformed one? I think not. Those who disdain having rock concerts in their back yard say, “Remember Altamont?” And I would say, “Remember Rome, Geneva, Luther’s Germany, Anglican England, Massachusetts Bay Colony?” The unsavory legacy of church doctrine* “compelling” faith or obedience through torture, punishment, even death, lives on in many churches, if not in practice, in spirit.

*[Edit: Phil D. below corrected my erroneously attributing this to Augustine, which is rumored to have been his view, but I now do not think it is so.]

​

 

[Phil D.]

The legacy of Augustine’s doctrine “compelling” faith or obedience through torture, punishment, even death

This is an all too common but horrific and defamatory misapprehension of Augustine's position. While he indeed supported (although in no way originated) the idea of the state's prosecution of heretics who committed heinous civil crimes, he explicitly and repeatedly denounced any use of torture or the death penalty for religious offenses.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Phil, I first became aware of Augustine's alleged view in this matter from Paul Johnson's, A History of Christianity, pages 116, 117. I have since found it almost proverbial, his supposedly saying it is lawful to compel heretics to assent to orthodoxy by use of force, citing Luke 14:23.

Johnson gives this caveat:

"We must not imagine that Augustine was necessarily a cruel man. Like many later inquisitors, he disliked unnecessary violence and refinements of torture. He thought heretics should be examined 'not by stretching them on the rack, not by scorching them with flames or furrowing their flesh with iron claws, but by beating them with rods.' He deplored, too, the dishonesty of using paid informers and agents provocateurs. But he insisted that the use of force in pursuit of Christian unity, and indeed total religious conformity, was necessary, and wholly justified."​

I also have written on the inside cover of Johnson's book, "[Beware this author – he has a low view of Scripture, and is untrustworthy as a witness to the Truth.]"

It appears you are right, Phil, and I have edited my posts to reflect that (see further below).

 

[Phil D.]

Steve,

Augustine is taken out of both subjective and circumstantial context on this matter.

For starters, the historical backdrop for his statements was the fact that orthodox clergy were being maimed and murdered by extremists within the Donatist sect. Here is Augustine's account of one such incident:

With regard to the aforesaid bishop of Bagai, in consequence of his claim being allowed in the ordinary courts, after each party had been heard in turn, in a basilica of which the Donatists had taken possession, as being the property of the Catholics, they rushed upon him as he was standing at the altar, with fearful violence and cruel fury, beat him savagely with cudgels and weapons of every kind, and at last with the very boards of the broken altar. They also wounded him with a dagger in the groin so severely, that the effusion of blood would have soon put an end to his life, had not their further cruelty proved of service for its preservation; for, as they were dragging him along the ground thus severely wounded, the dust forced into the spouting vein stanched the blood, whose effusion was rapidly on the way to cause his death. Then, when they had at length abandoned him, some of our party tried to carry him off with psalms; but his enemies, inflamed with even greater rage, tore him from the hands of those who were carrying him, inflicting grievous punishment on the Catholics, whom they put to flight, being far superior to them in numbers, and easily inspiring terror by their violence. Finally, they threw him into a certain elevated tower, thinking that he was by this time dead, though in fact he still breathed. Lighting then on a soft heap of earth, and being espied by the light of a lamp by some men who were passing by at night, he was recognized and picked up, and being carried to a religious house, by dint of great care, was restored in a few days from his state of almost hopeless danger. (The Correction of the Donatists, 7.27)​

Augustine did make a somewhat rhetorical argument that such criminals could indeed justifiably (biblically) be “compelled” by forceful means to return to the orthodox church, so that through their “conversion” further atrocities would be avoided. Of course such a notion is rightly offensive to modern evangelical sensibilities. Yet after he makes his case he goes on to say,

However, before those laws were sent into Africa by which men are compelled to come in to the sacred Supper, it seemed to certain of the brethren, of whom I was one, that although the madness of the Donatists was raging in every direction, yet we should not ask of the emperors to ordain that heresy should absolutely cease to be, by sanctioning a punishment to be inflicted on all who wished to live in it; but that they should rather content themselves with ordaining that those who either preached the Catholic truth with their voice, or established it by their study, should no longer be exposed to the furious violence of the heretics. And this they thought might in some measure be effected, if they would take the law which Theodosius, of pious memory, enacted generally against heretics of all kinds, to the effect that any heretical bishop or clergyman, being found in any place, should be fined ten pounds of gold, and confirm it in more express terms against the Donatists, who denied that they were heretics; but with such reservations, that the fine should not be inflicted upon all of them, but only in those districts where the Catholic Church suffered any violence from their clergy, or from the Circumcelliones, or at the hands of any of their people; so that after a formal complaint had been made by the Catholics who had suffered the violence, the bishops or other ministers should forthwith be obliged, under the commission given to the officers, to pay the fine. For we thought that in this way, if they were terrified and no longer dared do anything of the sort, the Catholic truth might be freely taught and held under such conditions, that while no one was compelled to it, any one might follow it who was anxious to do so without intimidation, so that we might not have false and pretended Catholics. And although a different view was held by other brethren, who either were more advanced in years, or had experience of many states and places where we saw the true Catholic Church firmly established, which had, however, been planted and confirmed by God’s great goodness at a time when men were compelled to come in to the Catholic communion by the laws of previous emperors, yet we carried our point, to the effect that the measure which I have described above should be sought in preference from the emperors: it was decreed in our council, and envoys were sent to the court of the Count. (Ibid 7.25)​

As Augustine notes, the basic type of law in question had already been enacted by the emperor Theodosius through what eventually became known as the Theodosian Code. So even the concept, let alone the instigation of state punishment of heresy can hardly be laid at Augustine’s feet. As we see, he in fact argued for a very selective use of the already existent law to levy fines against heretics. Augustine does go on to relate here that his advice was disregarded in the matter. Yet he continually attempted to personally intervene in cases where Donatists who had committed even the most heinous crimes against his fellow churchmen had been sentenced to capital, or even corporeal punishment. Here is but one example from a letter he wrote to a magistrate who was about to pass sentence on a convicted offender:

I have learned that the Circumcelliones and clergy of the Donatist faction belonging to the district of Hippo, whom the guardians of public order had brought to trial for their deeds, have been examined by your Excellency, and that the most of them have confessed their share in the violent death which the presbyter Restitutus suffered at their hands, and in the beating of Innocentius, another Catholic presbyter, as well as in digging out the eye and cutting off the finger of the said Innocentius. This news has plunged me into the deepest anxiety, lest perchance your Excellency should judge them worthy, according to the laws, of punishment not less severe than suffering in their own persons the same injuries as they have inflicted on others. Wherefore I write this letter to implore you by your faith in Christ, and by the mercy of Christ the Lord Himself, by no means to do this or permit it to be done. For although we might silently pass over the execution of criminals who may be regarded as brought up for trial not upon an accusation of ours, but by an indictment presented by those to whose vigilance the preservation of the public peace is entrusted, we do not wish to have the sufferings of the servants of God avenged by the infliction of precisely similar injuries in the way of retaliation. Not, of course, that we object to the removal from these wicked men of the liberty to perpetrate further crimes; but our desire is rather that justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the maiming of their bodies in any part, and that, by such coercive measures as may be in accordance with the laws, they be turned from their insane frenzy to the quietness of men in their sound judgment, or compelled to give up mischievous violence and betake themselves to some useful labor. This is indeed called a penal sentence; but who does not see that when a restraint is put upon the boldness of savage violence, and the remedies fitted to produce repentance are not withdrawn, this discipline should be called a benefit rather than vindictive punishment? (Letter to Marcellinus)​

Again, I believe remarks like Johnson's are ignorant and defamatory, and should not be propagated.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Phil,

I just finished (almost all of) Augustine’s Correction of the Donatists, and it does appear you are right – A. has gotten a bad rap without cause. It appears what he was really pushing for was for kings and emperors to protect the church of Christ by enacting laws that would protect the godly and law-abiding and restrain or punish the violent and lawless, particularly those who in unrighteousness assail the church, basing his views on, among other Scripture, Psalm 2.

This is quite different than what I would object to in a “state church” – one that punishes those who seek to live peaceably while dissenting from the “state church” doctrines.

I have edited my posts to remove my erroneous thoughts of Augustine.

 

[rbcbob]

The quote in the OP is ample evidence of the persistent (willful?) ignorance of the history of the Anabaptists, the Baptists who denounced them, and the several Protestant strands (named or alluded to in the OP) which can in no way be reconciled to Anabaptist theology. As a well read Reformed Baptist who appreciates so much of the Paedobaptist traditions it does weary me that these falsehoods persist.