Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?
Posted on 05/02/2013 6:40:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I am often asked, “What is an Anabaptist?” and “Who are the Anabaptists?” If one listened to everyone who claimed an Anabaptist connection, it would be easy to be confused. For many today a progressive politics is Anabaptist; for others it means being either Yoderian (John Howard Yoder) or Hauerwasian (Stanley Hauerwas). Fair enough, but neither of them is the full representation of Anabaptism.
So today I want to sketch the view of the one description of Anabaptism that shaped the 20th century the most. I refer to Harold S. Bender‘s classic essay called “The Anabaptist Vision.” No, it is not true that all Anabaptists agree with Bender, and no, some today (like Thomas Finger, in his big study, A Contemporary Anabaptist Theology, or J. Denny Weaver, Becoming Anabaptist) want to frame things in a different way, but it can be said that Bender’s sketch is the most influential view of Anabaptism of the 20th century.
There are three major dimensions of the Reformation: Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, Calvin and the Reformed in Switzerland, and Zwingli-generated (and then finished later by others) Anabaptism. Anabaptism spread through Switzerland, South Germany, Moravia and then into the Netherlands. The early Anabaptist theologians and statements of faith were uniformly Protestant in theology (justification, salvation by faith) yet were not simply Lutheran or Reformed. Their emphasis on adult baptism, upon profession of faith, as part of commitment to be a disciple, and to form into a fellowship of discipleship distinguished the Anabaptists from both the Lutherans and the Reformed, not to mention the Catholics.
Anabaptism is largely responsible for the nonconformist impulse of the church — to be sure, it has some connections to those before it, like the Waldensians of Italy, but the Anabaptists were radical in their nonconformity to the State and to State-sponsored churches — that is, the Catholic Church, Lutherans and the Reformed. All non-State churches in the U.S., and that’s most, owe some debt to the Anabaptists.
They were a courageous lot — thousands were put to death. They paid their life to be nonconformists, and there’s a positive way to put this: they died in order to be faithful to their commitment to follow the Bible, the New Testament and Jesus Christ.
For Bender, the Anabaptists are the full implementation of the Reformation. Neither Luther nor Calvin went far enough. Bender’s focus is Luther, not Calvin, and he cites evidence that Luther late in his life realized his “mass church,” which was basically everyone born into the community/State would be baptized and be Lutheran, was ineffective in transforming the life of the person. The early Anabaptists, like Conrad Grebel, observed the lack of discipleship among the Lutherans of the Reformation. So the Anabaptists carried through the Lutheran reforms and broke with 1,500 years of the church.
Bender is famous for three features of the Anabaptist vision:
The essence of Christianity, or the Christian life, is discipleship — a committed following of Christ in all areas of life. The word on the street in the 16th century — and this word repeated often enough by bitter enemies of the Anabaptists — was that they were consistent and devout Christians. If Luther’s word was “faith,” the word for the Anabaptists was “follow.” The inner conversion was to lead to external transformation.
A new conception of the church as a brotherhood of fellowship. The ruling image of a church among the Catholics and Reformers was more national and institutional and sacramental, while the ruling image for the Anabaptists was fellowship or family. Joining was voluntary; the requirement was conversion; the commitment was to holy living and fellowship with one another. Thus, the Anabaptist separated from the “world” to form a society of the faithful. This view of the church led to economic availability and liability for one another.
A new ethic of love and peaceful nonresistance. Apart from rare exceptions like Balthasar Hubmaier and the nutcases around Thomas Müntzer, the Anabaptists lived a life shaped by love and nonviolence. They refused to coerce anyone.
Thus, for Bender, the focus was on discipleship not sacraments or the inner enjoyment of justification. The church was not an institution or a place for Word proclamation in emphasis but instead a brotherhood of love. In addition, against Catholics and Calvinists who believed in social reform, like the Lutherans the Anabaptists were less optimistic about social transformation. But, unlike the Lutherans who split life into the secular and sacred, the Anabaptists wanted a radical commitment that meant the creation of an alternative Christian society.
That you're as out of touch as he, but on different subjects?
Pictures, or it's not true.
“That you’re as out of touch as he, but on different subjects?”
Ironically, you’re behaving just like the atheist. Except, you’re misrepresenting me because you’re a Catholic and I am not.
And you take this to mean?
I start preparing for it tonight.
But Jesus points out that he (the man of noble birth) would not immediately be exerting power as king. So he leaves his minas or spiritual interests in the hands of his slaves (disciples), upon return as king Jesus settles accounts, his disciples were to use what they had been taught, the good news, to make more disciples in proportion to what they had received. To those who failed to use what they had their mina would be taken away from them and given to the productive disciples.
As Jesus said to that Jewish nation that had had the kingdom in their future, he took it away from them and gave it to a nation producing it's fruit. That stood as a warning. Produce the the fruitage of the kingdom or lose it.
Jesus would send his disciples out make more disciple, to teach “this good news of the kingdom”.
But the message had to be his message, not whatever they chose. Those who tried to decide what their ministry was to be whether powerful works done in his name or expelling demons, Jesus called them lawless, they weren't following him. “I never knew you”. And then there were the poisonous weeds of Matt. 13.
Jesus doesn't tell the slaves with the minas to slaughter his enemies but says that to “those standing by”. Who might that be?
Matt. 13:30, 39. The reapers, angels charged with the harvest, no executional role assigned to his disciples, not even doing the harvesting.
That's some of my input for what it's worth.
I'm talking about being unwilling to defend themselves, and relying on the police to do so, while feeling so superior in their righteousness over those who use violence to protect them.
In Jesus' time, the Roman army wasn't bothering subjects who paid their taxes and didn't oppose their rule. Thus it was viable for early Christians to be pacifists.
Then Rome fell. Bandits roamed the land, pirates roamed the seas, and anybody who could not defend himself, nor was under the protection of a warlord, faced extermination. Christian philosophy had to change for the circumstances or face extinction.
Then there's the passage of Jesus telling his apostles to have a sword or two among their gear, to defend against bandits.
“In Jesus’ time, the Roman army wasn’t bothering subjects who paid their taxes and didn’t oppose their rule. Thus it was viable for early Christians to be pacifists.”
Well...there is John the Baptist, Jesus himself, the other apostles, generally all those who wouldn’t worship the Roman emperor, sounds like bothering to me.
“Christian philosophy had to change for the circumstances or face extinction.”
Apparently a Jewish Pharisee understood God’s power more than your comment indicates you do. (Acts 5:33-40) ‘If this work is from God men will not be able to overthrow it’.
Thank you.
Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?
Nope. You either made a typo of Reformers instead of RCC, or you don't know much about the Reformers. It would appear to be the former because you don't get it quite right about the Anabaptists believe of baptism either.
The title ANA-BAPTIST well describes their meaning.
Your great error was in stating that Reformers believed that baptism has anything to do with salvation. That is false statement. It appears then that you don’t understand the very basics about the Reformation.
Why did many of the reformers insist on infant baptism?
“Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?”
So I was right. This is a Catholic/Protestant grudge from a previous thread. Just know that annoying me here won’t make your life easier the next time you have to defend your religion.
So what was (were) your former screen name(s)?
Calvin believed that infants MUST be baptized.
“So what was (were) your former screen name(s)?”
As soon as you tell me your current screen name over at DUh, my stalker friend.
I don’t have a screen name at DUh. Never have, never will. So what was/were your screen name(s) at FR?
“I don’t have a screen name at DUh.”
Thou protests too much. So what is your screen name at DUh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.