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

[Grimmson]

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

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

 

[Iconoclast]

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

 

[Poimen]

So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.

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

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

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks in advance.

John

The Belgic Confession identifies three errors that the Reformed opposed in the Anabaptist creed:

Article 18:

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

Article 34:

we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers

Article 36:

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

Obbe Philips recollects here: OBBEPHIL

 

[Grimmson]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Author of my Faith]

John Gerstner on Anabaptist

So, one groups heretic is another groups hero.

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

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

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks in advance.

John

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

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

 

[Scott1]

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