those who bless Israel are blessed....

[Guest]

Sab:

The Anabaptists suffered at the hands of so-called Christians because they made a stand for the truth of water baptism by immersion as adults - it shows how far from the truth Luther, Calvin and Co were.

As a (so-called Christian) Lutheran married to a (so-called Christian) Catholic I take exception to "the truth of water baptism by immersion as adults " Though this is not the place to argue it.

I suggest you read a bit of history about the Munsterites and radicals associated with the Zwickau Prophets, Jan Matthys, John of Leiden (also Jan Bockelson van Leiden, Jan of Leyden), and Thomas Muentzer. You might find that things are not quite as one sided as you assume.

On the other hand you have to be rather selective about history to make your case about the persecution of jews.

The Romans persecuted the jews especially in AD 70 , yet reached their peak of power in AD 106 and continued on for several more centuries.

The Crusaders killed a lot of jews from the beginning. Yet they conqured the Holy Land and held it for several centuries.

The Spanish Inquisition went after the jews at the same time they were making an empire in the new world. Their empire only declined years after the inquisition ended.

Nor should you reserve the bulk of anti-semitism to the "Christians". The non christians , Roman , Muslim , Nazi , and Soviets have certainly done more than their share. They were also pretty good at persecuting the Christians at the same time.

Is this what Jesus meant when he said the time would come when people who kill you will think they are doing God a service? Yes, he was talking to the disciples - who also happened to be Jewish.

They were followers of Christ which makes them Christian.

Thomas

[Guest]

I suggest you read a bit of history about the Munsterites and radicals associated with the Zwickau Prophets, Jan Matthys, John of Leiden (also Jan Bockelson van Leiden, Jan of Leyden), and Thomas Muentzer. You might find that things are not quite as one sided as you assume.

I have read that "bit of history", Thomas. I don't think it is fair to count the Munsterites and radicals among the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists in general did not accept them.

The reason the Protestants, especially Zwingli, persecuted and put to death the Anabaptists was mainly on the issue of "anabaptism" ("rebaptism" as the Protestants (and Catholics) understood it). They were not put to death for armed resistance of for extremist behaviour as per the Munsterites. Indeed, the Anabaptists were and are to this day, pacifists. They were killed like sheep to be slaughtered without resistance.
It was a great affront to the Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwingli-ites of the day not to have their infant baptism recognized as true baptism by the Anabaptists.

[Guest]

Paidon:

I have read that "bit of history", Thomas. I don't think it is fair to count the Munsterites and radicals among the Anabaptists. The Anabaptists in general did not accept them.

From the vantage point of hindsight it is much easier to see the difference. I agree it is not fair to lump the two together. But then it would be fair also to say that Luthers great polemic:

Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants

Was not written against the anabaptist per se , but against the peasants who were ingaged in violent rebellion , fomented by Muntzer and the Zwickau Prophets. Their slogan "Omnia sunt communia, all things are common" was much more dangerous to society than their views on baptism.

It was a great affront to the Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwingli-ites of the day not to have their infant baptism recognized as true baptism by the Anabaptists.

It was a great affront for the Catholics and Lutherans to be forcfully re-baptised as the radicals were doing. It would still be a great affront today.

The 16th century was not a time of religous freedom and tolerence. It is a credit to the anabaptists that this idea prevailed where Luther failed. We can now air our differencs in words without killing each other.

Yet this tolerence could not become a reality as long as the radicals were engaged in violence. That they were dangerous inevitably led to the belief that the idea of anabaptism itself was dangerous. It was not until the radicals were finaly surpressed that this tolerence could develop.

I do not say this to exuse the evils commited against the anabaptist. But I cannot overlook the evils commited by the radical anabaptists either. It would be unfair to disavow the radicals and yet still blame the Lutherans etc. for the violence that the radicals caused.

Thomas

[Guest]

Their slogan "Omnia sunt communia, all things are common" was much more dangerous to society than their views on baptism.

Thomas, would you please explain why the communalism practised by some anabaptists in that day was dangerous to society? And does the danger (whatever it was) remain to this day?

[Guest]

Hola Paidon:

Communalism as practiced by anabaptists such as the Hutterites today , is not dangerous. They voluntarily hold their own property in common.

The common property they were talking about in 1525 was what was confiscated from from others , i.e. theft. This is generaly known as communism or marxism today.

Thomas

[Guest]

Paidion:

Indeed, the Anabaptists were and are to this day, pacifists.

The difference between the peacefull anabaptist and the violent radicals was not so much one of doctrine , it was in how the doctrine was to be applied. The peacefull ones then , and now , project their doctrine inwardly and voluntarily. The radicals tried to apply this same doctrine outwardly and apply it by force opon society.

The radicals had an apocalyptic vision (post-mill.) in which Christ would return when the earthly kingdom became purified. They believed it was their duty to do the purification and that this excused any means. It was for the greater glory of God. Many groups had done this in the past so it was not unique to them.

The rank and file of the radicals was made up of anabaptists (along with a considerable number of opportunist of indeterminate faith). The difference between the peacefull and the violent had to do with what preacher they were listening to. And it was the radical preachers who were to blame , not the peasants. The vast majority of the people , irregardless of their denomination , were illiterate and depended on their preachers to interpret the Sciptures

In hindsight these radicals were not realy anabaptist but were oportunist who were using this movement for their own ends.But that was not apparent at the time.(for example Muentzer confessed and took the sacrements as a Catholic before his execution)

So an inward voluntary belief in common property became a "let's grab it from the rich for our common use" and perhaps kill the owner who resisted in the process.

A belief in adult baptism became a desire to re-baptise everyone , for the sake of their salvation , whether they agreed to it or not.

etc.

For the greater glory of God , and to usher in the millenium.

The radicals were surpressed by the end of the 16th century , but the anabaptist were to carry this stigma for many more years. Without justification. The evangelicals as a whole are still painted with this stigma by secular society today.

Thomas