Michael Wrenn
New Member
General Baptists? That's easy -- that's what Smyth and Helwys were. The first and original Baptists were General Baptists; they came before the interloper Particular (Calvinist) Baptists.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Anabaptists and the Atonement
- Thread starter Michael Wrenn
- Start date
General Baptists? That's easy -- that's what Smyth and Helwys were. The first and original Baptists were General Baptists; they came before the interloper Particular (Calvinist) Baptists.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
What might have been the General Baptist's views on the atonement?
Just curious HP, what denomination are you a member of?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
I like suspense. It adds to mystique.:smilewinkgrin:
How about if I say "God's?" :thumbs:
How about if I say "God's?" :thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
So you don't attend a church?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
How where and when I attend any church is between myself, my wife and family and the Lord. It has varied over my Christian life and does so from time to time. This forum is not the best venue to discuss my personal choices.
At times I will tell you it is in prison.
At times I will tell you it is in prison.
I didn't think so.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Since the General Baptists were influenced to some extent by the Mennonites, I believe their views would have had some similarities.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I am somewhat familiar with Mennonites, growing up among them and attending several services with different groups. I know one thing, they sure make great neighbors and friends you could always count on!:thumbs:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
I suppose what is strange to me is that I have never heard of the Mennonites referred to as being closely associated with general Baptists.
Funny story I have about the Mennonites and my father's charity towards them, that happened one night at a Mennonite church. They were having a revival meeting but my father always liked to speak to the men attending prior to the service, so his usual he was standing in the vestibule of the church conversing with some of his friends when a new evangelist walked in. Of course the new evangelist did not know who was and who was not a member of the church, and my dad, wearing a beard and no tie, fit right in as one of them. Now in the Mennonite church it is a customary practice at least for some to greet each other with a holy kiss. My dad, being an outgoing friendly fellow standing there smiling, the evangelist reached over to give my father holy kiss. Immediately the men standing around dad said "Oh no no, he is not a brother!" To which my dad replied smiling, " Oh yes I am!"
I had a great example of a Christian father who exemplified Christian charity with others in every group he went in and out of. He always tried to treat even those he disagreed with kindness and respect and love. When others could not call him a brother, he still would go out of his way to call and treat them as a brother with Christian charity and kindness.
Such charity among disagreement is certainly a rare bird in so many circles.........
Funny story I have about the Mennonites and my father's charity towards them, that happened one night at a Mennonite church. They were having a revival meeting but my father always liked to speak to the men attending prior to the service, so his usual he was standing in the vestibule of the church conversing with some of his friends when a new evangelist walked in. Of course the new evangelist did not know who was and who was not a member of the church, and my dad, wearing a beard and no tie, fit right in as one of them. Now in the Mennonite church it is a customary practice at least for some to greet each other with a holy kiss. My dad, being an outgoing friendly fellow standing there smiling, the evangelist reached over to give my father holy kiss. Immediately the men standing around dad said "Oh no no, he is not a brother!" To which my dad replied smiling, " Oh yes I am!"
I had a great example of a Christian father who exemplified Christian charity with others in every group he went in and out of. He always tried to treat even those he disagreed with kindness and respect and love. When others could not call him a brother, he still would go out of his way to call and treat them as a brother with Christian charity and kindness.
Such charity among disagreement is certainly a rare bird in so many circles.........
Taken note that you are quoting exactly what I said they beleived. They did accept the penal substitionary position and forensic justification BUT IN ADDITION they believed in progressive righteousness whereby the child of God was being made righteous in regard to his person or imparted righteousness by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.
I did read it all the way through and the writer stipulated very carefully that they embraced some tenets of the Christus Victor position (the very tenets that I believe are very consistent with the penal position) but not to the extent they denied the penal substitutionary atonement.
Both of you need to read the article again and more carefully.
First, he admitted that it is very difficult to get a unified position from the Anabaptists because of their various fractions.
A greater difficulty for describing early Anabaptist characteristics, however, is the undeniable diversity among them. Because groups with radical differences in other ways could be lumped together under an Anabaptist umbrella,
Second, he admitted they rejected justification by the works of the law but believed "good works" followed true conversion experience:
Anabaptists rejected justification by the law as a means of salvation as did the other Reformers, but they insisted that those who are saved will follow the law of Christ written in their hearts and do the “works of faith.”
Third, he admitted they held to the penal substitutionary theory for the most part.
The Anselmian “satisfaction” or substitutionary model of the atonement, emphatically articulated by the Magisterial Reformers, was not wrong in the Anabaptist’s view for they agreed with most of it.
Fourth, they only concluded that the REFORMERS penal satisfaction theory was correct but simply didn't go far enough:
In their direct references to the atonement, they affirm biblical themes and use the general language of substitution. But to them, that model was inadequate or insufficient. It concentrated chiefly on Christ’s death and had been reduced to a passive or forensic doctrine which concerned only a change in humanity’s legal status before God.....To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more. According to Pilgram Marpeck it was far more than a legal transaction in the heavenly court
Fifth, when he entered in the Victorus Christor position he stipulated only that they held to some of its tenets without disregarding the penal atonement position.
They did not explicitly discuss these models, so the question remains as to how their view of the atonement fits any or all of them. It seems clear that different Anabaptist writers used the language of all three models. Finger writes that “Anabaptist understandings of atonement overflow any and all of the three traditional theories, and suggest a variety of angles from which to consider atonement.....The Dutch Anabaptists, however, more often use the language of substitution.......Their belief that Christ’s work was imputed to infants, to previous sins of believers, and to the continued sinfulness of their corrupt human flesh was based on substitutionary concepts of payment and acquittal........Anabaptists had a sharp sense of conflict with the world, the flesh, the devil, and the religious-political structures of their time. Peter Ridemann, who often sounds Augustinian, also spoke about sin as chains by which people are bound by the devil. He wrote that Christ had “come to destroy the work of the devil”; had “destroyed the power of death, hell and the devil”; and had “overcome the devil and death and had risen again”
Conclusion: You are pressing this way too far. They certainly did not hold to a strictly moral influence theory but only held those aspects that penal substitutionists also hold - that Christ came to destroy the works of Satan and deliver his people from sin.
First, he admitted that it is very difficult to get a unified position from the Anabaptists because of their various fractions.
A greater difficulty for describing early Anabaptist characteristics, however, is the undeniable diversity among them. Because groups with radical differences in other ways could be lumped together under an Anabaptist umbrella,
Second, he admitted they rejected justification by the works of the law but believed "good works" followed true conversion experience:
Anabaptists rejected justification by the law as a means of salvation as did the other Reformers, but they insisted that those who are saved will follow the law of Christ written in their hearts and do the “works of faith.”
Third, he admitted they held to the penal substitutionary theory for the most part.
The Anselmian “satisfaction” or substitutionary model of the atonement, emphatically articulated by the Magisterial Reformers, was not wrong in the Anabaptist’s view for they agreed with most of it.
Fourth, they only concluded that the REFORMERS penal satisfaction theory was correct but simply didn't go far enough:
In their direct references to the atonement, they affirm biblical themes and use the general language of substitution. But to them, that model was inadequate or insufficient. It concentrated chiefly on Christ’s death and had been reduced to a passive or forensic doctrine which concerned only a change in humanity’s legal status before God.....To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more. According to Pilgram Marpeck it was far more than a legal transaction in the heavenly court
Fifth, when he entered in the Victorus Christor position he stipulated only that they held to some of its tenets without disregarding the penal atonement position.
They did not explicitly discuss these models, so the question remains as to how their view of the atonement fits any or all of them. It seems clear that different Anabaptist writers used the language of all three models. Finger writes that “Anabaptist understandings of atonement overflow any and all of the three traditional theories, and suggest a variety of angles from which to consider atonement.....The Dutch Anabaptists, however, more often use the language of substitution.......Their belief that Christ’s work was imputed to infants, to previous sins of believers, and to the continued sinfulness of their corrupt human flesh was based on substitutionary concepts of payment and acquittal........Anabaptists had a sharp sense of conflict with the world, the flesh, the devil, and the religious-political structures of their time. Peter Ridemann, who often sounds Augustinian, also spoke about sin as chains by which people are bound by the devil. He wrote that Christ had “come to destroy the work of the devil”; had “destroyed the power of death, hell and the devil”; and had “overcome the devil and death and had risen again”
Conclusion: You are pressing this way too far. They certainly did not hold to a strictly moral influence theory but only held those aspects that penal substitutionists also hold - that Christ came to destroy the works of Satan and deliver his people from sin.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Michael Wrenn
New Member
What is clear, even from what you just quoted, is that some of them held to a certain aspect of penal substitution -- the aspect that agrees with Christus Victor.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
From the article:
There was indeed a critical difference between Anabaptists and the Magisterial Reformers on the doctrine of the Atonement. It was not so much about how Christ’s sacrifice affected the Divine as how it accomplished liberation and divinization for human beings.
To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more. According to Pilgram Marpeck it was far more than a legal transaction in the heavenly court.41 It meant “at-one-ment” with God and referred to all the ways in which God and humans have been reconciled through the work of Jesus Christ. It points not only to Christ’s death, but to all the various phases of his activity on behalf of humanity including his ministry, his death, and his resurrection.
This comprehensive view of atonement is in contrast to both Catholic and Protestant traditions that have held a forensic doctrine of atonement in which “all that is really necessary for the salvation of humankind is a qualified (pure) victim.”
Balthasar Hubmaier was an Anabaptist theologian whose concept of God-human relations was explicitly synergistic. Like other Anabaptists he believed firmly in salvation by grace alone and that the atonement meant both reconciliation and restoration. But both of those implied a {129} necessary human response. The soul is awakened, “made healthy,” and given freedom to again choose the good. It must therefore cooperate with God for the work of Christ to be effective. It must allow itself to be reconciled to God. Salvation, he stressed, does not take place without human cooperation. Therefore, Hubmaier does not emphasize a forensic interpretation of atonement, especially not in the penal substitutionary form
There was indeed a critical difference between Anabaptists and the Magisterial Reformers on the doctrine of the Atonement. It was not so much about how Christ’s sacrifice affected the Divine as how it accomplished liberation and divinization for human beings.
To the Anabaptists, however, atonement meant much, much more. According to Pilgram Marpeck it was far more than a legal transaction in the heavenly court.41 It meant “at-one-ment” with God and referred to all the ways in which God and humans have been reconciled through the work of Jesus Christ. It points not only to Christ’s death, but to all the various phases of his activity on behalf of humanity including his ministry, his death, and his resurrection.
This comprehensive view of atonement is in contrast to both Catholic and Protestant traditions that have held a forensic doctrine of atonement in which “all that is really necessary for the salvation of humankind is a qualified (pure) victim.”
Balthasar Hubmaier was an Anabaptist theologian whose concept of God-human relations was explicitly synergistic. Like other Anabaptists he believed firmly in salvation by grace alone and that the atonement meant both reconciliation and restoration. But both of those implied a {129} necessary human response. The soul is awakened, “made healthy,” and given freedom to again choose the good. It must therefore cooperate with God for the work of Christ to be effective. It must allow itself to be reconciled to God. Salvation, he stressed, does not take place without human cooperation. Therefore, Hubmaier does not emphasize a forensic interpretation of atonement, especially not in the penal substitutionary form
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Continued....
Pilgram Marpeck emphasized the enormity of Jesus’ humiliation, suffering, and sacrifice that effects liberation rather than emphasizing a changed legal status. By his patient and innocent endurance of the cross, Christ “has liberated his people from their eternal burden.”
The divinization of humanity as it was perceived by the Radical Reformation is based on the Johannine concept of salvation. Through the Holy Spirit, God brings about an ontological change within the nature of the person so that the image of God lost in the Fall is restored and the believer is made a participant in the divine nature. It is a reversal of the incarnation in which the eternal Word becomes human in order that humanity may become divine in the sense that was described above. (This is in harmony with Irenaeus's Recapitulation Theory -- my thoughts)
Pilgram Marpeck emphasized the enormity of Jesus’ humiliation, suffering, and sacrifice that effects liberation rather than emphasizing a changed legal status. By his patient and innocent endurance of the cross, Christ “has liberated his people from their eternal burden.”
The divinization of humanity as it was perceived by the Radical Reformation is based on the Johannine concept of salvation. Through the Holy Spirit, God brings about an ontological change within the nature of the person so that the image of God lost in the Fall is restored and the believer is made a participant in the divine nature. It is a reversal of the incarnation in which the eternal Word becomes human in order that humanity may become divine in the sense that was described above. (This is in harmony with Irenaeus's Recapitulation Theory -- my thoughts)
Michael Wrenn
New Member
And lastly,
The important insight of the Anabaptists on atonement that has been called in this paper the “critical difference” is also a Christus Victor theme. This insight is that the work of Christ restores to humanity the possibility of communion and community with the triune God. Ontological transformation or “divinization” allows participation in the divine nature while still part of earthly reality. Christ is Victor so those “in Christ” can also be victors.
George Williams highlights the drama and dynamism of the Radical Reformers’ interaction with the traditional theories of atonement when he writes,
The basic conception of the Radicals as to what constituted salvation and as to what constituted Christ’s role in their redemption was being transformed. Without at first expressly repudiating the Anselmian doctrine of the atonement, but increasingly distressed by Luther’s preoccupation with justification at the practical expense of sanctification, and in any event disposed to look back to the humble Christ rather as exemplar than as sacrifice and to look forward to his imminent return as vindicator, they neglected or but routinely repeated the thought of Christ’s death as a ransom to the devil or as a sacrificial appeasement of the Deity and {134} concentrated, rather, on fresh surmises, or substitutes for, the traditional versions of the doctrine of the atonement. Competing or complementary formulations with respect to the objective atonement jostled alongside each other in the ferment of fresh speculation and experience.
The important insight of the Anabaptists on atonement that has been called in this paper the “critical difference” is also a Christus Victor theme. This insight is that the work of Christ restores to humanity the possibility of communion and community with the triune God. Ontological transformation or “divinization” allows participation in the divine nature while still part of earthly reality. Christ is Victor so those “in Christ” can also be victors.
George Williams highlights the drama and dynamism of the Radical Reformers’ interaction with the traditional theories of atonement when he writes,
The basic conception of the Radicals as to what constituted salvation and as to what constituted Christ’s role in their redemption was being transformed. Without at first expressly repudiating the Anselmian doctrine of the atonement, but increasingly distressed by Luther’s preoccupation with justification at the practical expense of sanctification, and in any event disposed to look back to the humble Christ rather as exemplar than as sacrifice and to look forward to his imminent return as vindicator, they neglected or but routinely repeated the thought of Christ’s death as a ransom to the devil or as a sacrificial appeasement of the Deity and {134} concentrated, rather, on fresh surmises, or substitutes for, the traditional versions of the doctrine of the atonement. Competing or complementary formulations with respect to the objective atonement jostled alongside each other in the ferment of fresh speculation and experience.