Roman Catholics, Magisterial Protestants, and Other "Protestants"

[Michael Wrenn]

I'm probably going to alienate most of the forum, but here goes:

There's a lot of "righteous indignation" shown here by some against the RCC, calling it apostate and such. The truth is, Magisterial Protestantism and many other forms of Protestantism, including "Reformed" Baptists, share much in common with the RCC, inasmuch as they are all various forms of Western, Latin Christianity which has not much in common with the earliest churches. All of these groups follow, in varying degrees, some form of Augustinianism which is a combination of part Christian and part pagan beliefs. The only branches of Christianity that have escaped that are the Eastern churches and the Anabaptists. However, since the Eastern churches have followed a non-scriptural, non-early-church hierarchical sacramentalism, the Anabaptists are the ones with the doctrines and practices closest to scripture and the early church. There is some vestige of this strain of Christianity in John Wesley, to the extent that he was influenced by Eastern Christianity.

So, the next time anyone reads an excoriation of the RCC by some "purists" who think to have escaped such a horrible expression of Christianity, remember that the one doing the excoriating is in fact a distant cousin of Rome. All of Western (Latin) Christianity has the same views of God, man, sin, and salvation. Oh, there is the battle over sacraments, faith vs. works, etc., but the soteriology springs from the same source. I have discovered a long time ago that I have virtually nothing in common with Western, Latin Christianity; it does not reflect scripture or the early church in belief, teaching, or practice.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes those bible believing Ana-baptist were very like the early church

In January, 1519, a church called him to Zurich. When the call came, a young woman in Einsiedeln charged him with getting her pregnant. Zwingli admitted his guilt...

In 1532, a radical group of Anabaptists took over the town of Mǖnster, Germany by election. Their leader, one John of Leyden, convinced the town elders to allow polygamy, thereby establishing “endless links of kinship.” He led the way by taking sixteen wives. All books except the Bible were burned; and Lutherans and Catholics were murdered

Yep those great saints the Ana-baptist were the only bible followers and just like the early church. Yes the sarcasm was intentional.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yes those bible believing Ana-baptist were very like the early church Yep those great saints the Ana-baptist were the only bible followers and just like the early church. Yes the sarcasm was intentional.

Let me set you straight:

Zwingli, an Anabaptist? Surely you jest. Zwingli was a Magisterial Reformer.

The Munsterites were a small, atypical group, completely unrepresentative of the Anabaptist movement. Of course you know that, but you had to say what you did to try to deflect from the fact that your RC killing machine has tried since Constantine to wipe out every Dissenter, including all the Anabaptists who were representative of the movement -- a pacifist movement seeking to follow the teachings of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount. The RCC of the time was an instrument of Hell, persecuting and murdering in the name of Jesus, just as did the Magisterial Reformers, including Zwingli.

So, to recap with the facts: The Munsterites were in no way representative of the Anabaptist movement; they were an aberration. On the other hand, the policy of the Roman whore was to persecute and murder all Anabaptists and other dissenters, and its spawn, the Magisterial Reformers, had the same policy.

BTW, I don't equate the modern RCC with the RCC of that day. I think they are more accepting and tolerant than some fundamentalists I've known.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Let me set you straight:

Zwingli, an Anabaptist? Surely you jest. Zwingli was a Magisterial Reformer.

The Munsterites were a small, atypical group, completely unrepresentative of the Anabaptist movement. Of course you know that, but you had to say what you did to try to deflect from the fact that your RC killing machine has tried since Constantine to wipe out every Dissenter, including all the Anabaptists who were representative of the movement -- a pacifist movement seeking to follow the teachings of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount. The RCC of the time was an instrument of Hell, persecuting and murdering in the name of Jesus, just as did the Magisterial Reformers, including Zwingli.

So, to recap with the facts: The Munsterites were in no way representative of the Anabaptist movement; they were an aberration. On the other hand, the policy of the Roman whore was to persecute and murder all Anabaptists and other dissenters, and its spawn, the Magisterial Reformers, had the same policy.

Zwigli as well as Felix Mantz were well known Ana-baptist. And both were responsible for the Zurich movement. Certainly the Munsterites were a branch of Ana-Baptist, However, my point is clear that 1) they were no more like the early church than any other protestant reformer and 2) had the same foiables of all the people of their times.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Zwigli as well as Felix Mantz were well known Ana-baptist. And both were responsible for the Zurich movement. Certainly the Munsterites were a branch of Ana-Baptist, However, my point is clear that 1) they were no more like the early church than any other protestant reformer and 2) had the same foiables of all the people of their times.

Look, you'd better read up on Zwingli, as you are misinformed about him. He was a state-churchist, infant baptizer and persecutor of Anabaptists.

The Munsterites were very atypical and non-representative of Anabaptists.

The Mennonites and other Anabaptists were pacifists; they sought to follow in practice the teachings of Jesus.

The Anabaptists were completely different from the Magisterial Reformers; they were non-Augustinian in theology; they believed in religious freedom, and believer's baptism; on this basis, they were persecuted just as strongly by the Magisterial Reformers -- Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli -- as they were by the RCC.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, you'd better read up on Zwingli, as you are misinformed about him. He was a state-churchist, infant baptizer and persecutor of Anabaptists.

The Munsterites were very atypical and non-representative of Anabaptists.

The Mennonites and other Anabaptists were pacifists; they sought to follow in practice the teachings of Jesus.

The Anabaptists were completely different from the Magisterial Reformers; they were non-Augustinian in theology; they believed in religious freedom, and believer's baptism; on this basis, they were persecuted just as strongly by the Magisterial Reformers -- Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli -- as they were by the RCC.

Zwingli only had problems with the Ana-Baptist of Zurich after the second Zurich Disputation. However, they bought into his 67 articles and Conrad Grebel was a student of Zwingli's. But like many other protestant denominations they differed and hand internal fighting.

As far as following the teachings of Jesus they made the comon error of reading scripture in their modern context. They shaded their readings with the newly brought philosophy of the time called humanism. Much like Luther, and Calvin both shaded their reading of scripture with a legal perspective as well as humanism due to their training as lawyers. Rather than actually read scripture from the understanding of the people of the autographs time.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Zwingli only had problems with the Ana-Baptist of Zurich after the second Zurich Disputation. However, they bought into his 67 articles and Conrad Grebel was a student of Zwingli's. But like many other protestant denominations they differed and hand internal fighting.

As far as following the teachings of Jesus they made the comon error of reading scripture in their modern context. They shaded their readings with the newly brought philosophy of the time called humanism. Much like Luther, and Calvin both shaded their reading of scripture with a legal perspective as well as humanism due to their training as lawyers. Rather than actually read scripture from the understanding of the people of the autographs time.

The fact is, Zwingli was no Anabaptist; he did not believe in religious freedom or believer's baptism only. He was a state-church infant baptizer. He was responsible for the execution of Felix Mantz, the first Anabaptist martyr. Zwingli was a Magisterial Reformer like Luther and Calvin, not a Radical Reformer/Anabaptist.

The Anabaptists tried to follow Jesus's Sermon on the Mount literally -- thus their rejection of oaths and their pacifism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The fact is, Zwingli was no Anabaptist; he did not believe in religious freedom or believer's baptism only. He was a state-church infant baptizer. He was responsible for the execution of Felix Mantz, the first Anabaptist martyr. Zwingli was a Magisterial Reformer like Luther and Calvin, not a Radical Reformer/Anabaptist.

The Anabaptists tried to follow Jesus's Sermon on the Mount literally -- thus their rejection of oaths and their pacifism.

Anabaptist tried to follow Jesus' Sermon on the mount Literally as they understood them. There were Anabaptist who were pacifist and Anabaptist who weren't. But most were which lead to mennonites and Amish.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Anabaptist tried to follow Jesus' Sermon on the mount Literally as they understood them. There were Anabaptist who were pacifist and Anabaptist who weren't. But most were which lead to mennonites and Amish.

Well, as I said, the Munsterites were a small, fanatical, atypical minority.

The reason we can worship as we choose today is because of the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Baptists -- groups despised and persecuted in their early days by both the RCC and the Magisterial Reformation.

I consider myself a spiritual descendant of the Anabaptists -- although I am not completely pacifist. My theology is mostly Anabaptist. Actually, Anabaptist views on God, man, and sin are much closer to pre-Augustinian Catholicism than to the Magisterial Reformers.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, as I said, the Munsterites were a small, fanatical, atypical minority.

The reason we can worship as we choose today is because of the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Baptists -- groups despised and persecuted in their early days by both the RCC and the Magisterial Reformation.

I consider myself a spiritual descendant of the Anabaptists -- although I am not completely pacifist. My theology is mostly Anabaptist. Actually, Anabaptist views on God, man, and sin are much closer to pre-Augustinian Catholicism than to the Magisterial Reformers.

That isn't entirely true. The reason we can worship as we choose is because the founding fathers of the United States insisted on it. The founding fathers were a hodgepodge of different denominations to include some Catholics. They were tired of the wars of faith in Europe and wanted to get away from that.

 

[The Biblicist]

That isn't entirely true. The reason we can worship as we choose is because the founding fathers of the United States insisted on it. The founding fathers were a hodgepodge of different denominations to include some Catholics. They were tired of the wars of faith in Europe and wanted to get away from that.

You better go back and restudy your facts. Both Zwingli and the Munsterites were pedobaptists, not Anabaptists. Several Roman Catholic priests were for a time in transition between Catholicism and Anabaptism and that should be expected as people simply do not make immediate transition from one set of theological beliefs to another set. However, Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons and several other Catholics who eventually made the full transition from Cathol to Anabaptist have writings that can be cited while in the transition.

Look at yourself. Did you make an immediate transition from Catholic to Baptist and then from Baptist to Catholic? Can a lot of statements be cited from your writings while in these transitions?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That isn't entirely true. The reason we can worship as we choose is because the founding fathers of the United States insisted on it. The founding fathers were a hodgepodge of different denominations to include some Catholics. They were tired of the wars of faith in Europe and wanted to get away from that.

New England was a Puritan theocracy which hanged four Quakers on Boston Common. Virginia and the South was mostly an Anglican theocracy which persecuted Baptists and other Dissenters. Only William Penn's Quaker Pennsylvania and Roger Williams's Rhode Island offered religious liberty. James Madison, a Virginia Anglican, supported the Baptists in their stance on religious liberty, and so did Jefferson, a nominal Anglican and basically a Deist.

Were it not for the influence of the Baptists and Quakers, and Madison and Jefferson, this country could have very well had a theocracy. It is true that many came here to escape such in England and other places, only to try and establish it for their side here -- they wanted religious freedom but only for themselves, not for everyone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

New England was a Puritan theocracy which hanged four Quakers on Boston Common. Virginia and the South was mostly an Anglican theocracy which persecuted Baptists and other Dissenters. Only William Penn's Quaker Pennsylvania and Roger Williams's Rhode Island offered religious liberty. James Madison, a Virginia Anglican, supported the Baptists in their stance on religious liberty, and so did Jefferson, a nominal Anglican and basically a Deist.

Were it not for the influence of the Baptists and Quakers, and Madison and Jefferson, this country could have very well had a theocracy. It is true that many came here to escape such in England and other places, only to try and establish it for their side here -- they wanted religious freedom but only for themselves, not for everyone.

you forgot there were catholic signers of the Declaration of independence as well.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

you forgot there were catholic signers of the Declaration of independence as well.

I will say that John Carroll was a conciliatory bishop and archbishop in Maryland who fought against Protestant state-churchism.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm probably going to alienate most of the forum, but here goes:

There's a lot of "righteous indignation" shown here by some against the RCC, calling it apostate and such. The truth is, Magisterial Protestantism and many other forms of Protestantism, including "Reformed" Baptists, share much in common with the RCC, inasmuch as they are all various forms of Western, Latin Christianity which has not much in common with the earliest churches. All of these groups follow, in varying degrees, some form of Augustinianism which is a combination of part Christian and part pagan beliefs. The only branches of Christianity that have escaped that are the Eastern churches and the Anabaptists. However, since the Eastern churches have followed a non-scriptural, non-early-church hierarchical sacramentalism, the Anabaptists are the ones with the doctrines and practices closest to scripture and the early church. There is some vestige of this strain of Christianity in John Wesley, to the extent that he was influenced by Eastern Christianity.

So, the next time anyone reads an excoriation of the RCC by some "purists" who think to have escaped such a horrible expression of Christianity, remember that the one doing the excoriating is in fact a distant cousin of Rome. All of Western (Latin) Christianity has the same views of God, man, sin, and salvation. Oh, there is the battle over sacraments, faith vs. works, etc., but the soteriology springs from the same source. I have discovered a long time ago that I have virtually nothing in common with Western, Latin Christianity; it does not reflect scripture or the early church in belief, teaching, or practice.

Actually, based upon the bible, and the real Gospel of grace!