Azusa St. Revival- 105th anniversary

Luke2427 · Apr 22, 2011

Earth said: ↑

Would Anabaptists be like Father Menno Simons, Father of the Mennonite Movement who was a Catholic priest prior to becoming a Anabaptist?

"He was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1515 or 1516[ at Utrecht. He was then appointed chaplain in his father's village Pingjum (1524)."
Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding!

Why bring facts into this thing EWF?

Facts get in the way of what we WANT to believe.

DHK · Apr 22, 2011

Luke2427 said: ↑

Facts are facts.

You admit that many anabaptists were heretics and then argue that they were orthodox but we don't know it because history was written by their enemies.

So where do you get your info on anabaptists?
Same place you get your theology, I surmise. You make it up.
Click to expand...

Where do I say that the Anabaptists are heretics? They are heretics inasmuch as Baptists are heretics. Are you one? All I did is point out that within the broad name of Anabaptist (as in Baptist) there was a wide variety, but the great majority of them were orthodox in their doctrine.

J.T. Christian in his "History of the Baptists" writes:

The Baptists of the Reformation claimed that they had an ancient origin and went so far as to suggest a "succession of churches". This claim was put forth by them at the very beginning of the Reformation A. D. 1521. An old letter is in existence founding: "Successio Ana-baptistica." The letter bears its own date as "that of the Swiss brethren, written to the Netherland Anabaptists, respecting their origin, a year before, Anno 1522" (Suptibus Bernardi Gaultheri. Coloniae, 1663 and 1612). The letter is particularly important since it shows that the Baptists as early as 1521 claimed a succession. Van Gent, a Roman Catholic, quotes the letter and calls the Anabaptists "locusts," "which last, as apes of the Catholics, boasted as having an apostolic succession" (Van Gent, Grundliche Historie, 85. Moded, Grondich bericht von de erste beghinselen der Wederdoopsche Sekten).

The author of the "Successio Anahaptistica," says of the Anabaptists:

I am dealing with the Mennonites or Anabaptists, who pride themselves as having the apostolic succession, that is, the mission and the extraction from the apostles. Who claim that the true Church is found nowhere, except among themselves alone and their congregations, since with them alone remains the true understanding of the Scriptures. To that end they appeal to the letter of the S. S. and want to explain them with the S. S. And thus they sell to the simple folks glass rubies for precious stones. . . If one charges them with the newness of their sect, they claim that the "true Church" during the time of the dominion of the Catholic Church, was hidden in her (Cramer and Pyper,. Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, VII. 510).

The point of this inquiry is that the Swiss Baptists wrote a letter, in 1522, on the apostolic origin of their churches in reply to one they had received the year before from the Baptists of the Netherlands, and that a Roman Catholic condemned them on that account.

We know also that at that date there were Baptists in the Netherlands. John Huibrechtsz was sheriff, in 1518, and he protected the Anabaptists (Wagenaar, Description of Amsterdam, III, 6, 66). Upon the origin of the Netherland Baptists the scholarly Van Oosterzee remarks:

They are peculiar to the Netherlands and are older than the Reformation, and must, therefore, by no means be confounded with the Protestantism of the sixteenth century, for it can be shown that the origin of the Baptists reaches further back and is more venerable (Herzog, Real Ecyclopaedie, IX. 846).

There is a like claim to the antiquity of the Swiss Baptists. At Zurich the Baptists, in 1525, had many discussions with Zwingli and others, in the presence of the City Council. On November 30, 1525, Zwingli secured a rigorous edict against them. The beginning of the edict contains the following words:

You know without doubt, and have heard from many, that for a long time, some peculiar men, who imagine that they are learned, have come forward astonishingly, and without any evidence of the Holy Scriptures, given as a pretext by simple and pious men, have preached, and without the permission and consent of the church, have proclaimed that infant baptism did not proceed from God, but from the devil, and, therefore, ought not to be practiced (Blaupot Ten Cate, Historical Enquiry).

From this it appears that the Baptists of Zurich, and thereabouts, had already been known "a very long time." The former statement of Zwingli, already given, will be recalled. There is no doubt that Zwingli wrote this decree. Two or three years would not be "a very long time." The antiquity of the Baptists was claimed by themselves, and admitted in 1525 by their enemies.

[FONT=&quot]A notable proof of the antiquity of the Baptists of Moravia is here recorded. Johanna Schlecta Costelacius wrote a letter from Bohemia, October 10, 1519, to Erasmus, affirming that for one hundred years the Picards had been dipping believers, and that they rebaptized and were therefore Anabaptists. His words are: "Such as come over to their sect must every one be dipped in mere water (in aqua simplici repbaptizari)" (Pauli Colimesii, Opera Theologica, Critica et Historica No. XXX. 534, 535, Hamburg, 1469).
Click to expand...

He also notes that John Huss was a Baptist.
[/FONT]

Luke2427 · Apr 23, 2011

DHK said: ↑

Where do I say that the Anabaptists are heretics?
Click to expand...

When I accused them of denying the Trinity and the Deity of Christ you retorted that there was much diversity among the anabaptists. So you were conceding that at least some of them were heretics.

J.T. Christian in his "History of the Baptists" writes:

He also notes that John Huss was a Baptist.
Click to expand...

You have at least two problems with this passage.

It only argues that Anabaptist CLAIMED they had Apostolic Succession.

It refers to a letter written in 1521.

You need a great deal more proof than THAT!

All that proves is that there was this group that POPPED up about the time of the Reformation that were called anabaptists that claimed a bunch of crud that could not be confirmed.

What good is THIS???

DHK · Apr 23, 2011

Luke2427 said: ↑

When I accused them of denying the Trinity and the Deity of Christ you retorted that there was much diversity among the anabaptists. So you were conceding that at least some of them were heretics.

You have at least two problems with this passage.

It only argues that Anabaptist CLAIMED they had Apostolic Succession.

It refers to a letter written in 1521.

You need a great deal more proof than THAT!

All that proves is that there was this group that POPPED up about the time of the Reformation that were called anabaptists that claimed a bunch of crud that could not be confirmed.

What good is THIS???
Click to expand...

John Huss became an Anabaptist. He was the morning star of the Reformation. Was he too a heretic?
Do you know who the wife of Calvin was? She was an Anabaptist--by that time Baptist. Was she also a heretic?

Azusa St. Revival- 105th anniversary

Luke2427 Active Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Luke2427 Active Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Useful Searches

Azusa St. Revival- 105th anniversary

Luke2427 Active Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Luke2427 Active Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>