The heresy of the Anabaptists

There were many heretics among their number . Some were a bit more orthodox . It depends on the particular group or individual . I have more in common with the Reformers . ( Obviously with some strong reservations here and there . )

By the way -- Balthaser Hubmaier ( 1480-1528) was my favorite . He was burned for his beliefs .

 

Heresy of Anabaptists

In as much as much of the records no longer exist, at least are not readily available, there is a certain ambiguity which exists regarding the term: Anabaptist. The same is true today regarding the terms: Christian and Baptist. They have come to mean many different definitions to the point of being lost in ambiguity as well. There are dozens of groups called Christian--including LDS. There are more than a hundred groups called Baptist. Many of them cannot fellowship because of doctrinal differences.

If the paradigm for filtering information is "orthodoxy", we still have a dilemma. That which many consider orthodox is throughly corrupted by the commandments of men. Perhaps this is why those who would translate the Word of God outside the "holy see" were persecuted--many to their deaths.

Anabaptists--the rebaptizers. That is an interesting notion. Why would someone need to be re-baptized? I expect this practice produced no small amount of consternation among the religious "powers that be" during the time when such practice was rampant in the Valleys of Piedmont. See "History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont" by S. Morland, a pretty good contemporary observer.

Refusing to baptize infants and baptizing those who come from other "faiths" is a well established practice even today. The rationale: baptism is a work, salvation is by grace, not works--i.e. no baptismal regeneration. The term re-baptism is really a misnomer. The people practicing such regarded the candidate as not having scriptural baptism--pedo or otherwise, since such baptisms are without the authority of scripture, and therefore null and void. This causes no small amount of religious indignation among the "holy see" which claims to be the one and only holder of the authority to perform such things. If they are right, everyone else is without authority--including those called Protestant.

That brings up another dilemma: if the "holy see" has no authority, where did people like Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others, get their authority? Most of them were de-frocked Roman priests.:thumbs:

:type: By the way, true Baptists are not Protestant. They get their authority from Jesus going back to the shores of Galilee. He gave authority to His first Church which has passed it down through the past two thousand years--never having gone through Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg, Canterbury, or Nauvoo.:tonofbricks:

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

Historically, the definition of "Protestant" would include Baptists, since those who formed what eventually became the various branches of the Baptist family did come from the stock and theology of English separatists, most of whom were either ex-Catholics or ex-Anglicans. It is true that they did claim to derive their authority from the time of Christ, but also true that there is no direct connection to that which can be verified or proven. Even if there were a "direct line" that bypassed Rome, it would lead through groups to which no Baptists today bear similarity. Baptists are Protestants, not in the connectional, main line sense, but in the sense that they came out of the Reformation. The diversity among the denominations and churches that call themselves Baptists bear marks of reformation theology and practice.

 

I would strongly recommend reading the church history book called
Pilgrim Church by EH Broadbent. I would suggest Rippon to check with Jeondo-Choolpansa in Ilsan.
He made a very good survey and study from the view of Born-Again Believers, following the Brethren, Baptists, Wiedertaufer ( Anabaptists), Waldenses.

Apparently there was a big problem in Munster Incident around 1520-28 as the vile guys participated there and even polygamy was tolerated.

I personally believe that Jesus didn't take the flesh from Mary, and Mary was just a surrogate mother. Jesus was the same as He said Before Abraham was, I am, and Abraham was pleased to see His days. The Ovum of Mary was not suitable to be fertilized with Word of God. It was designed to get fertilized with a sperm of a man. I don't think Word of God became a sperm first then was fertilized with the ovum of Mary.
If you carefully read Matthew 1:20 in Greek, you can find Jesus was already born out of Holy Spirit, before He was born by Mary.
This view will be disappointing Roman Catholic very much, I know. They will vehemently object to it as they called Anabaptists Heretic.

 

Bro Jack, haven't you heard ......there were Baptists in Wales before the Reformation!

Thanks Bartimaeus/Ky/Look Away!

 

If He did not take His human nature from Mary then we are still dead in our sins, since He could then not be a Son of David.

 

Jesus may have got the Second Adam's as per 1 Cor 15:45, 47
God prepared a body for Him ( Heb 10:5)
Also, the person who gave birth to Jesus is God ( Heb 1:5)

God created all genome and DNA couldn't be a problem

 

Eliyahu, I remember a few times long ago when I brought up the issue of Jesus having divine blood and was condemned around here on the BB. As I understand the Scripture, the sin nature is inherited and passed down from generation to generation and if Jesus had human DNA from Mary, He could not have been the spotless sacrificial lamb for sin.

But that is not popular theology among the Baptists on the BB. I was also told here that we don't inherit the sin nature from Adam (or something along that line). So I have not brought the subject up anymore because apparently the Baptists of today don't believe Jesus has Divine Blood. But I agree with you, anyway.

Here's an article I found that addresses the geneology and DNA issue:

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

 

On the Internet it is said that the Anabaptists were the forefathers of the Southern Baptists. I find this odd in light of the Divine Blood issue and the majority of people posting on here claim to be Southern Baptist yet don't believe Jesus' Blood is/was Divine. Also, weren't the Anabaptists more of the Armenian bent rather than Calvinistic?

I would like to know if it is true that the Anabaptists were the forefathers of Southern Baptists. And I would appreciate links if someone could post them.

Thank you, billwald, for bringing up this topic. It could prove to be enlightening and interesting for many members here including myself to learn more about the Anabaptists and historical origins of Southern Baptists.

 

For which heresy would you have joined in with the reformed churches and drowned AnaBaptists?

Me? None.

 

Thanks for contributing. (roll eyes)

 

Some tidbits from Catholic persons of the 1500's.

Bishop Hossius 1556: “…Anabaptists; since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished.”
--Orchard, A Concise History of Foreign Baptists, page 364.

Bishop Erasmus 1529: “The Anabaptists of Switzerland, although they are very numerous….”
--Orchard, A Concise History of Foreign Baptists, page 358.

Remember, the Reformation just started, but Anabaptists were "very numerous" despite no political backing. Why? They likely had the start of their growth far earlier. Bishop Hossius reports that as of the 1500's they had been around for 1200 years.

Also, an author named Füsslin reported “`There was a great difference between Anabaptists and Anabaptists….’”
--Quoted in Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists, page 180.

Hence, one Anabaptist group may have differed greatly from another group on a matter, and other groups over other matters. There was evidently a wide range of beliefs and practices among Anabaptist groups. Enemies of the Anabaptists sometimes picked up on bad tenets of one group and tried to characterize the whole Anabaptist collective with it.

Of course, time to grow a vast array of different beliefs and practices further points to antiquity of the Anabaptist groups as a whole before the Reformation.

Various tenets of various Anabaptist groups met Reformation ideas and one of the results is our present Baptist denomination.

 

Actually I dealt with this issue on this board 2-3 times. They may be in the archive.

The Ovum of Mary(Miriam) was not designed to be fertilized with the Word of God, but with sperms of man. The Word of God didn't become a sperm but a flesh.

I was deeply impressed with the explanation by a Med Doctor who is over 80 year of age, have been a believer over 60 years after being born again, have thought about this issue so long time.
He said, nothing from the body of Miriam could be be used for the birth of Jesus, that was his conclusion.

Jesus was born in the perfect form of human being. He may be another race, other than Adam's race. If we can believe that Adam was created by God, nothing can hinder us from believing in that God could enflesh His Son with another flesh, before His Son was launched into the body of Miriam.
The Ovary Tube of Miriam was not used.
Matthew 1:20 support this belief.
Jesus was already born by Holy Spirit, which took place before He came out of Mary.

 

OK then it is your turn to contribute: "Which heresy do you believe that AnaBaptists should have been dunked for?"

They were murdered for believing in baptism - their greatest heresy. And the OP was about the heresy.

So which heresy would you contribute?

 

As for the Heresy, Bible teaches us,

Titus 3:10
10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;


What Roman Catholic have done so far is this:

John 16:2
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

 

Then why did you bring out the Reformed argument against the Anabaptists?

First: They personally killed a couple of Anabaptists . . . and sat back and watched a bunch more get executed;

Second: They did not always reflect accurately what the Anabaptists believed;

And thirdly: there were several groups of Anabaptists (they are much more difficult to group than any other 'group' of Christians).

So I ask (and asked) why? Why are you bringing up the allegation (heresy) that was used to execute Anabaptists?