(...Click below for full post)
From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:
OF THE NAME: ANABAPTISTS.*
The name "Anabaptist" was really not accepted by them by choice or desire, but of necessity; for their proper name, if we consider well the thing in connection, should be, Christ-minded, Apostle-minded, or Gospel-minded (Gal. 3:26, 27, 29), as they were called of old, yea, many centuries ago, because their religion agreed with the doctrine of Christ, the Apostles, and the holy Gospel; which appears from the confession of faith which they from time to time have published, and which we, as far as we know them, are ready to defend, if necessity requires it; of which also others boast; but how they prove it, they may answer for themselves, and the impartial and intelligent may judge.
The name Anabaptists which is now applied to them, has but lately come into use, deriving its origin from the matter of holy baptism, concerning which their views differ from those of all, so-called, Christendom. In what this difference consists, we will now briefly, and in the sequel more fully state.
We could have wished that they had been called by another name, that is, not only after the holy baptism, but after their whole religion; but since it is not so, we can content ourselves with the thought that it is not the name, but the thing itself, which justifies the man. For this reason we have applied this name to them throughout the work, that they may be known and distinguished from others.**
* The word "Anabaptist" is here used to signify the same as "Taufgesinate" in the German, and "Doopsgesinde" in the Dutch language, for which the English language affords no better term, the literal signification of "Doopsgesinde being "baptism-minded."
** Ancient Israel was called the circumcision because all Israelites were circumcised. (I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15).
Comments:
1. Is Believer’s Baptism really essential to Anabaptist Christianity?
The Anabaptists’ faith is placed in a full, Christian, apostolic gospel. “Believer’s baptism” is not the single most important item of the Anabaptist’s faith, on which our salvation rests. But it is what distinguishes the Anabaptists from all other Christians (from “Christendom”).
I have a rough intuition that we must keep straight the distinction between what properties are essential to membership in Class A and what properties are true of all and only members of Class A. Let me give this a go:
If Class A = Anabaptists and Class C = Christendom, let X be the constellation of properties that are necessary for membership in Class A, and for Class C, and also sufficient for membership in either Class A or Class C. (Another way to put this is that A and C are subclasses of Class X and possessing X is necessary and sufficient for membership in X.) B may be the single property possessed by members of Class A that is not possessed by members of Class C. This means that B is important, epistemically, in discerning who is a member of A rather than C. But it does not necessarily mean that B is more important than other properties belonging to X in determining (ontologically) who is in Class A.
(Does any of that make sense?)
To try again: believer’s baptism may be a part of what is essential to being an Anabaptist (even, for the sake of argument, a member of “the true Church”), but it does not play a larger role in defining Anabaptist Christianity than, say, theism or the doctrine of the Incarnation. Believer’s baptism only rises to prominence under circumstances accidental to the existence and nature of the Anabaptist faith community: namely that in which the majority of Christians have abandoned that particular doctrine.
Why does this matter? Because I suspect that something other than believer’s baptism is more fundamental to Christian discipleship, and that believer’s baptism has at some times and places served to express that more fundamental thing (such as during the 16th century persecution of the Anabaptists). In other historical contexts (perhaps contemporary American and Global Christianity) that more fundamental thing might find expression in other doctrines and practices, even with the door left open to infant baptism.
I suspect that that more fundamental thing has something to do with the confession of Christ as Lord trumping any political allegiances--including allegiances to church authorities. In 16th century Europe, of course, allegiance to certain church authorities (whether Catholic or Lutheran or whatever) was officially bound up with allegiance to certain secular authorities—and unofficially this may be the case in the minds of many American Christians today. Hence the Anabaptists’ claim to have invented the notion of the separation of church and state.
(In practice, by the way, MCUSA allows for members to join on confession of faith without rebaptism; I’m not sure however that this is the same thing as recognizing the individual’s baptism & confirmation—it may rather be a matter of dispensing with the water rite altogether. Personally, I would rather the former happened. The church as a whole is not likely to take a particular stand on the matter of interpretation, however, in a way that would bind its members—that’s not how Mennonites work.)
From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:
OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND WHY WE HAVE PREFERRED IT TO ALL OTHER ARTICLES, IN OUR HISTORY
We have chosen holy baptism in preference to any other article of the Christian and evangelical religion
1. Because it is the only sign and proof of incorporation into the visible Christian church, without which no one, whoever he be, or whatever he may profess, or how separated and pious a life he may lead, can be recognized as a true member of the Christian church. This is fully, yet without controversy, shown and confirmed in the following history.*
2. Because it is, beyond contradiction, the only article on account of which others call us Anabaptists. For, since all other so-called Christians have, yet without true foundation, this in common that they baptize infants; while with us the baptism only which is accompanied by faith and a penitent life, according to the word of God, is administered, to adults; it follows, that with us such persons are baptized who have received baptism in their childhood, without faith and repentance; who, when they believe and repent, are again, or at least truly baptized with us; because with us their previous baptism, being without true foundation, and without the word of God, is not considered baptism at all.**
3. Because the imperial decrees (when some so-called Christians began to tyrannize) in the days of Theodosius and Honorius, A. D. 413, were issued and proclaimed everywhere expressly against the Anabaptists and those who were rebaptized; namely against such who maintained the aforementioned article, as the Anabaptists of today do; which was also the case in the last persecution, during the reign of Emperor Charles V., more than eleven centuries afterwards, A. D. 1535; when all who, having been baptized in infancy, had been rebaptized upon their faith and repentance; or who maintained these views, were punished with a severe death, as may be seen in our account of baptism, and of the martyrs, for the years 413 and 1535.
4. Because it would not have been possible to write in detail of all the other articles of the Christian faith and worship of God, as they, through all the centuries from the days of Christ up to the present time, have been believed and practiced according to the manner of the Anabaptists of this day; without going beyond the bounds of the largest book; since no book could possibly be printed or planned on so large a scale, as to contain all this; wherefore we have been obliged to observe moderation in writing, throughout, so as not to become diffuse, or overstep the bounds of a reasonable book.
* Paul asked the Church at Rome, whether they did not know that as many as were baptized (or incorporated through baptism) into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? (Rom. 6:3. Compare with Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 12:13).
** Notwithstanding Philips of Marnix; then, F. Beza: then Menso Alting then, Abr. A. Doreslaer; and then, the latest translators of the Bible, have come to another conclusion concerning the rebaptizing of the twelve Ephesian disciples who had been baptized by John, Acts 19:1-3; there has, nevertheless, as far as we have been able to discover, before the time of P. Marnix yea, for more than fifteen hundred years, never been a single Greek or Latin divine who doubted that those Ephesians were baptized again, because the first time they had been baptized without having a knowledge of the holy Ghost.
Comments:
2. Some evidence that anti-imperialism is more foundational than believer’s baptism to the Anabaptist tradition.
(1) Note that vanBraght states believer’s baptism is a sign and proof, of one’s incorporation into the visible Church, necessary for one’s being recognized as a member of the true Church. This plays nicely into my suggestion above that the prominence of believer’s baptism is accidental and epistemic.
(2) Here the point is made that infant baptism is “without the word of God”. The argument goes thus: The scriptures say that faith and repentance are necessary for true baptism, and there is no scriptural foundation for the practice of infant baptism. Therefore a church founded in the word of God must be one that practices believer’s baptism. I am not going to deal with this argument here, at least not presently.
(3) Here I think we see the more fundamental, political issue. The historical accident under which believer’s baptism came to stand out as a sign of “the true Church” was that the political authorities of Christendom condemned the practice of believer’s baptism as heresy and persecuted its practitioners. The reason for their concern was that the Anabaptist’s dissent was a political dissent, a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a so-called Christian state, and a refusal to recognize the authenticity of a church that compromised with the political authorities to the point of proclaiming the divine right of kings. The Anabaptist’s objection to infant baptism is supposed to be that it equates citizenship in the “Christian” empire (i.e., Christendom) with citizenship in the Kingdom of God.
Now in the present era, infant baptism (in the U.S. for example) is not a necessary and sufficient condition for citizenship. The contemporary equivalent of Theodosius’ position on baptism would be if the Episcopal Church in America declared that it was the official state church and that every child born in the U.S. simultaneously gains citizenship in the U.S. and in the Kingdom of God (because they are virtually the same entity!). This is not, I think, anything like what a church community practicing infant baptism in the U.S. intends to say.
If both infant baptism and the baptism of adult converts were practiced prior to Theodosius (and I advance this merely as a historical conjecture without proof), what do you suppose would have happened had the state adopted the baptism of adult converts as the ritual sign of full citizenship rather than infant baptism? (To be clear, now I am engaging in alternate-universe speculations). Suppose the official state churches baptized adults in a ceremony in which they simultaneously swore an oath of allegiance to Christ and to the Empire, perhaps immediately before entering military service? Would the group that stood out and was persecuted be persecuted because they practiced adult baptism and not infant baptism? No, but because they rejected the notion of the Christian Empire (and consequently refused to participate in military service). It might even be possible that a group of Christians who persisted in their practice of infant baptism would be among those who insisted on the separation of church and state (that is, disassociation of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Caesar), and were persecuted.
(4) This point is not in need of comment.
From The Martyr's Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght; translation by Joseph F. Sohm:
THE REASON WHY WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE ARTICLE OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND THE ADHER ENCE OF ANABAPTISM, FROM THE DAYS OF CHRIST TO THE PRESENT TIME:
For more than a century up to the present day, people have been made to believe that the Anabaptists contemptuously so-called, have but recently sprung from some erring spirit,-some say, from the Munsterites,* etc.; whose fabulous faith, life and conduct, the true Anabaptists have never recognized; for no one will ever be able to show with truth, so far as we have been able to ascertain, that the articles of religion of those Munsterites, whereby they have drawn the attention of the world upon themselves, and which consist in commotion, rebellion and such like, have ever been adopted or acknowledged as good, much less professed and lived, by any formal church of the Anabaptists, or by any well known member of the same. But, on the contrary, they have from that time on and ever since declared that they would have neither lot nor part with them or their transactions; and admonished one another, not to follow such ways, because these could not stand the test before God and His Word, nor before the mind of a true and meek Christian, as being contrary to the Gospel of Christ, and the most holy faith.
Were we disposed to pay them in their own coin, we might say: The Munsterites were fellow members of those who sanction war and claim that one must propagate and defend his religion with the sword. For this is what they did; but we speak against it with heart, soul, and mind. (my emphasis)
Nevertheless, the people were made to believe these things; and therefore, many simple people without experience or knowledge have adopted the above opinion, simply because their pastor, preacher, or teacher told them so; hence, many slanders have sometimes been, and are still, spewed out like bitter gall, against the so-called Anabaptists, who are despised and rejected by everybody.
In order to show that the doctrines of the Anabaptists, especially that article an account of which they are called Anabaptists, did not originate with the Munsterites, or any other erring spirits who have arisen in these last times, but have proceeded from the source of truth-Christ and His apostles, we have placed their origin in the time of Christ, and shown that at that time already, this article, with other articles of the Christian religion, was taught and practiced; and also after the death of the apostles, through every age, even to the present time. ....
Comments:
3. Some evidence that non-violence is more foundational than believer’s baptism to the Anabaptist tradition.
I will not reproduce here the lengthy footnote which retells the story of the Munsterites—go to the Martyr’s Mirror webpage to read it.
This provides however an interesting example of a group of Christians in the 16th century who practiced believer’s baptism and opposed the Roman Church and Lutherans, but whom vanBraght insists have no continuity with what he calls the Anabaptist tradition. The primary reason for this is that the Munsterites took up arms in order to advance their religious cause. So it turns out that believer’s baptism is not sufficient to distinguish Anabaptists (vanBraght’s “true Church”) from Christendom.
VanBraght will be dealing more directly with the church perpetuity claim I’m interested in in the next section, I believe.
Until Next Time!
Feedback appreciated!
------
"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)
Posts
