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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon 316

Puritan Board Sophomore
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
 

Willem van Oranje

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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."

Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?
 

rbcbob

Puritan Board Graduate
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."

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

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Junior
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."

Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?

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 ----------

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."

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.

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

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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?
 
Last edited:

Willem van Oranje

Puritan Board Junior
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 murdered by drowning in the Limmat River for believing as I do that infants should not be baptized?

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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Junior

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
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."

Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?

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

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.
 

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
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."

Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?

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 ----------

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."

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.

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.

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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.

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

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
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.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Grimmson

Puritan Board Sophomore
...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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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

Puritan Board Junior
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."

Thanks for this.

Are these things really heresy though?

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

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.

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!
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
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.

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.
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.

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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Junior
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?

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

Puritan Board Professor
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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritanboard Amanuensis
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?

Well those of us in paedo-baptist camp confess in the WCF that a refusal to baptize your infants is a "great sin".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top