The AnaBaptist History

[David Taylor]

Anabaptists - came about during the Reformation, so completely N/A

Not true; the organization of the modern Anabaptist into a denomination structure may have started circa the Reformation era; but there was a much older lineage of anabaptists reaching a thousand years prior to the Reformation.

You might enjoy this thread by one of our members Parson Tim, These hard headed Baptists .

(some good excerpts and pre-reformation citations)

"The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time." Ulrich Zwingli (1484)

"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists ... were the original Waldenses ... On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only religious community which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient." Ypeij and Dermout, Chaplains to the King of Holland (1812)


"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years they would swarm in greater numbers than all the reformers." Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504) President of the Counsel of Trent


Chapter One ~ Todays State of Affairs"Now, I think it not labour lost to speak somewhat of anabaptism. In the time that Decius and Gallus Caesar were Emperors, there arose a question in the parts of Africa of rebaptising heretics; and St. Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops, being assembled together in the council of Carthage, liked well of anabaptism." Heinrich Bullinger (1504)

• Decius (201 A.D. to 251 A.D.) and was the first Roman Emperor to launch an organized persecution against Christians.
• Gallus Caesar lived from about (201 A.D. to 311 A.D.) and was responsible for starting the persecution against Christians in 303 A.D.
• Saint Cyprian of Carthage, (230 A.D. ? to ? A.D.) was a famous Roman Catholic bishop & great orator of his day.

Chapter One ~ Todays State of AffairsAgainst the Donatists St. Augustine, with other learned men, disputed. There is also an Imperial Law made by Honorius and Theodosius, that holy Baptism should not be iterated (repeated). Justinian Caesar hath published the same, in Cod. lib. I. Tit. 6, in these words. If any Minister of the Catholic Church be detected to have rebaptised any, let both him which committed the unappeasable offence, if at least by age he be punishable and he, also, that is won and persuaded thereunto, suffer punishment of death.

• Augustine of Hippo (354 A.D. 430 A.D.) was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo in North Africa.
• Justinian Caesar (483A.D. to 565 A.D.) was a Roman emperor from about 527 A.D. who by the sixth century, had orchestrated the joining of apostate churches with imperial Rome in outlawing anabaptism as a offense punishable by death.

Theodore Roosevelt, LL.D., Associate Editor of, "The Outlook" and a former President of the United States of America; and several other distinguished scholars served as contributors to the book entitled Crossing the Centuries, copyrighted in 1912. This highly educated group of scholars gave the histories of various religious denominations in North America at that time. About the Baptists this book states:

Chapter One ~ Todays State of Affairs"Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence."

"The extreme conditions of the Reformation served to develop an organized denominational unity among the Baptists in Switzerland in 1523, which extended into Germany, then spread to Holland and other countries of Europe, also to England and Wales. The Baptist church of modern times may properly claim its "organized" denominational activities as beginning with the Switzerland movement."


Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher of the 1800s stated:
"I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects."
and"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents."
Chapter One ~ Todays State of Affairsand
"And now it seems to me, at this day, when any say to us, 'You, as a denomination, what great names can you mention? What fathers can you speak of?' We may reply, 'More than any other under heaven, for we are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novatians, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussites, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers were men indured to hardships, and unused to ease. They present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life, the Spirit's anointing, the fellowship of the Son in suffering and of the Father in truth."
and
"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II (A.D. 1154-1189) to those of Elizabeth (1558-1603) we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism."

[BadDog]

David,

Thx for the information. I have looked into this a bit in the past also, as I am avidly interested in church history.

Anabaptists originated in 16th century Europe during the Reformation and their direct descendants are the Amish, Hutterites and Mennonites. There is no doubt about that.

The Waldensians or Waldenses is a movement of the later Middle Ages. But it originated in the late 12th century as the Poor Men of Lyons, a band organized by Peter Waldo around 1177, who had been a wealthy merchant of Lyon who gave away his property and went about preaching poverty as the way to perfection. So the Waldensians can trace their origins into the later 12th century.

Although some of the doctrines are similar, it has not been shown that the Anabaptist movement was started by the Waldensians. Some do claim that the Anabaptists have existed since the time of the apostles, as you point out, but that claim is strongly disputed by modern scholarship. (You can even check in the Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, pp. 874-876.)

Just FYI. So I am sticking to the Anabaptist movement as a result of the Protestant Reformation.

The Anabaptist movement is a neat one, not because of some of the unusual practices, but due to the doctrinal convictions of the movement. IMO the unusual practices are unfortunate, for they have detracted from its popularity. It was a biblical movement, IMO.

CYL,

BD

[David Taylor]

The thing is, that I've found from my studies, is the organized denomination named 'anabaptists' began out of the Protestant Reformation.

However, the ideology of the primary tenants that anabaptists hold to the contrary of RCC beliefs; has existed since the beginning, under many names and adherants.

What I find interesting, though, is how even during and before the Protestant Reformation, the RCC was condemning and standing against the 'anabaptists' and 'anabaptism'....there was more there, than just the re-baptizing/believers baptism vs RCC infant baptism.

(again from Tim's thread)

Baptism of born again believers only - Only those who are born again and saved may be baptized. Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Self Governing - The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church's beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a "member" of any other body.
The believer is the priest, not the clergy solely - "Priest" is defined as "one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God." Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God's Word, pray for others, and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God--whether we are a preacher or not.
No Sacraments except the Blood of the Lord Jesus and only two Ordainances - The local church should practice two ordinances: baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and the Lord's Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
Only two offices of the church - The Bible mandates only two offices in the church--pastor and deacon. The three terms--"pastor," "elder," and "bishop," or "overseer"--all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
Biblical Authority Only - The scriptures are the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority.

Because of these distinctions, Cardinal Hosius in the 1540's said: "If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, whence there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people."

The RCC has a rich history of persecuting the anabaptist and similar like minded congregations that stood out against RCC doctrines all along the way.

We can say the anabaptists were formed as a unique denomination in the 1500s, but to say beliefs they and others prior to them began then is to dismiss much history that says otherwise.

Check out this read, it chronologs anabaptists through each century; especially starting in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D....those who aren't suppose to exist for another millenia sure were a thorn in the side of the RCC.

http://homecomers.org/mirror/

Funny how the name anabapist was used so often in the actions of the early church centuries before the reformation.

[David Taylor]

Here's another good read on the early anabaptists.
http://www.anabap.com/anabaphistory.htm
It chronicles the groups throughout each century that were labeled anabaptists, and what they believed and why they were persecuted by the RCC.

I haven't had time to read it all, but since it is ordered based on centuries, and it lists alot of references and citations to historical records, I thought it would be good to share.

[The Mighty Sword]

Here's another good read on the early anabaptists.
http://www.anabap.com/anabaphistory.htm
It chronicles the groups throughout each century that were labeled anabaptists, and what they believed and why they were persecuted by the RCC.

I haven't had time to read it all, but since it is ordered based on centuries, and it lists alot of references and citations to historical records, I thought it would be good to share.

Wasn't it a little more than persecution on the part of the RCC, I recall reading on the attempted destruction of the Anabaptist by the RCC due to not conforming.

[-SEEKING-]

This thread reminds me again that I need to study church history.

[matthew94]

Both David and BadDog make valid points. In one sense the Anabaptists came out of the reformation (as a clearly defined group), but in another sense the basic beliefs of those Anabaptists were not really 'new,' as other peoples and groups had held such beliefs previously.

I think a very good case can be made that the reformation restored doctrine to Augustine (eliminating RCC tradition from Augustine to Luther), but that the radical reformation (the anabaptists) did a better job of restoring doctrine to earlier church father's (or the Bible itself). Of course, I'm an anabaptist at heart myself, so I'm somewhat biased.

Here are some names that can be used to start a good study of Anabaptist history

Transitional Anabaptists (preparing the way)
Erasmus The Protestant Catholic
Luther The Catholic Protestant
Karlstadt The Radical Protestant
Zwingli The Protestant Radical

Swiss Anabaptists
Castelberger Radical Small Group leader
Manz Radical Hebrew scholar
Grebel Radical Greek scholar
Blaurock Radical Baptism volunteer
Reublin Radical small-town preacher
Hubmaier Radical Reformation writer
Sattler Radical Confessor
RESULT Shleitheim  Brethren

South German/Moravian Anabaptists
Muntzer Radical Revolutionary
Hut Radical Revolutionary
Denck Radical Mysticism
Marpeck Radical Mediator
Wiedemann Radical Refugee leader
Hutter Radical Refugee leader
RESULT Shared pot  Hutterites

Low Country Anabaptists
Hoffmann Radical Apocalypticist
Matthijs Radical City-Ruler
Joris Radical Spiritualist
Simons Radical Reformer
RESULT Pacifism  Mennonites/Amish

[BadDog]

Thx Matthew, for this information... I agree.

Many movements came out of the Reformation, or perhaps I should say were stimulated by the Reformation. And Erasmus' Greek compiled NT was the impetus to Luther's posting of those 95 theses on the door of the church at Wittenburg. Until he read the Greek, he didn't really understand how far off target the RCC had gone. And he wasn't trying to break off from the RCC -- he wanted to "reform" it. But you might say that he got the ball rolling.

Until Constantine made it not only legal to be a Christian, but advantageous, Christianity was quite unified and biblically sound. That slowly changed. The issues were not so much doctrinal, although there was certainly that, as issues with indulgences; a works-oriented gospel and the issue with Mary, of course.

There were several movements which began, some even before Constantine--such as the heretical Arianism, throughout church history. But the Anabaptist movement itself arose from the Reformation. I know that Baptists like to say that it originated from the Apostles, but I don't think they'll get many church historians to agree with them (if any). I don't think we should try to force it, or seek some mystical link back to the Apostles. There are plenty of movements. Study them as they stand alone.

Church history is very interesting. It is interesting how the church slowly got off-track after it became a political institution. The Mighty Sword, I don't think we should say that the RCC tried to destroy these side organizations wholesale, for many of them they allowed, and some they even encouraged.

Now regarding the Waldensians, in 1179 they sent a committee to the pope, who was impressed and supported them. (They were not trying to separate from the RCC but bring about change internally. They supported many of the peculiar doctrines of the RCC, such as infant baptism.) But later the RCC was not happy with the "itinerant preaching" portion of the movement. They wanted only Roman Catholic clergy doing that. Hence by the early 13th century they began to be persecuted severely. (The movement focused on literal interpretation of the Bible, a humble, poor lifestyle, and itinerant preaching/witnessing. It was a neat organization. But the re-baptism of believers was not a tenet of the organization, I don't think.)

Take care,

BD

[BadDog]

Wasn't it a little more than persecution on the part of the RCC, I recall reading on the attempted destruction of the Anabaptist by the RCC due to not conforming.

If you're talking about the Waldensians, the RCC did that starting in about 1215AD. They were trying to annihilate the Cathars (also called Albigensians), which was a heretical group, and the Waldensians lived nearby and many were included in the purge.

But the Waldensians were not Anabaptists. They held to infant baptism and other RCC doctrines. In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. The well-known and respected Baptist historian A.H. Newman said:

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party."
A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1897), p41.

The Lombardy Waldenses considered infant baptism essential for salvation. But Peter Waldo was very much Catholic in his doctrine.

But yes, the RCC did try to eliminate any movements outside their direct control. That started with Pope Gregory the Great in 590 AD.


I also think that we are ignoring much other in Christian history... such as the Greek Orthodox Church. After the Great Schism, they have been separated. We're ignoring nearly half of Christianity history. They had their issues too.

BD

[The Mighty Sword]

If you're talking about the Waldensians, the RCC did that starting in about 1215AD. They were trying to annihilate the Cathars (also called Albigensians, after their center at Albi), which was a heretical group, and the Waldensians lived nearby.

But the Waldensians were not Anabaptists. They held to infant baptism and other RCC doctrines.

BD

Others believe that in 312 CE when Emperor Constantine proclaimed he had had a vision to unite the Roman Empire under a universal (i.e. "catholic") church, this began the Roman Catholic Church. Others point to earlier dates (certain of the "Church fathers") or later dates (to Nicea or other councils).
In my opinion, the Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE the followers of Jesus, like the Jews, spread out through the known world. These people studied and prayed and sought God's direction according to their ability. Some of these people supported merging their doctrines with Roman Pagan doctrines in an attempt to lessen the persecutions and gain official recognition by the Empire. Others doubtless supported this position out of lack of knowledge. They were Romans and they knew these teachings, but were ignorant of Jewish scripture and doctrine. In the New Testament Paul and others warn that Pagan and other "heretical views" were being introduced into the Church. It can be argued that these Romanized teachings were included in these warnings.
Other people sought more mystical approaches (the Gnostics etc.). As time went by there were many "Christianities" not just one and these were incredibly diverse in their teachings and beliefs. Some Nazarenes believed one thing, others another.
Once the form of Christianity embraced by certain pro-Roman factions gained political power and recognition the Catholic Church began a long process of distilling and canonizing its beliefs into a Roman hierarchically authorized form. This form is what we today refer to as Roman Catholicism.
Other forms of Christian religion continued as well but these were forced underground by severe persecution. Sects like the Abegensians, Cathers, Arians, Anabaptists, the Coptic Church, etc. maintained their teaching as the arguably true Christian faith largely underground but by this point it was impossible to identify any as being truly apostolic (as the teachings of the Apostles). In time most of these were destroyed by the might of the Catholic Church or faded away and yet the Papacy never managed to completely destroy the other sects.

[BadDog]

Others believe that in 312 CE when Emperor Constantine proclaimed he had had a vision to unite the Roman Empire under a universal (i.e. "catholic") church, this began the Roman Catholic Church. Others point to earlier dates (certain of the "Church fathers") or later dates (to Nicea or other councils).
In my opinion, the Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

I realize that. And things did begin to change once the church became a political organization. But the doctrine was still basically sound at that time. Augustine (latter 4th century, early 5th) is the foundation of much of Reformed theology! They specifically say their theology traces to Augustine. John Calvin says this in his writings.

Gregory the Great was the first to try to make the RCC a powerful organization, politically, and to enforce the power of the Pope and the RCC. He was trying to strengthen the church. But that led to all sorts of problems.

Roman Catholics say they can trace their beginnings to Peter. Some Baptists say the same thing. I say that there is no historical basis for such, for either organizations. And it's not the historical background that gives an organization authority, but the Word of God. That alone is the standard. Who cares about the historical background in that regards? And it is true that the RCC slowly devolved from the unified church at the time... but Peter was never a Pope. He was never even a bishop of Rome. The historical records are clear there.

Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE the followers of Jesus, like the Jews, spread out through the known world. These people studied and prayed and sought God's direction according to their ability. Some of these people supported merging their doctrines with Roman Pagan doctrines in an attempt to lessen the persecutions and gain official recognition by the Empire.
BD: True, some did. But not the vast majority. They suffered much for their faith.

Others doubtless supported this position out of lack of knowledge. They were Romans and they knew these teachings, but were ignorant of Jewish scripture and doctrine. In the New Testament Paul and others warn that Pagan and other "heretical views" were being introduced into the Church. It can be argued that these Romanized teachings were included in these warnings.

BD: Agreed. But that happened more after Constantine. Look it up.


Other people sought more mystical approaches (the Gnostics etc.). As time went by there were many "Christianities" not just one and these were incredibly diverse in their teachings and beliefs. Some Nazarenes believed one thing, others another.

BD: The Gnostic movement was fought tooth-and-nail by many Christians at the time, starting with the Apostle John. (True, he faced docetism, which is related to gnosticism.) But re4search it, and you'll find many popes opposed to the gnostic movement.


Once the form of Christianity embraced by certain pro-Roman factions gained political power and recognition the Catholic Church began a long process of distilling and canonizing its beliefs into a Roman hierarchically authorized form. This form is what we today refer to as Roman Catholicism.
Other forms of Christian religion continued as well but these were forced underground by severe persecution. Sects like the Abegensians, Cathers, Arians, Anabaptists, the Coptic Church, etc. maintained their teaching as the arguably true Christian faith largely underground but by this point it was impossible to identify any as being truly apostolic (as the teachings of the Apostles). In time most of these were destroyed by the might of the Catholic Church or faded away and yet the Papacy never managed to completely destroy the other sects.

TMS,

You keep bringing up these groups. But the Arians and Cathers were very heretical! They were nowhere near the "true Christian faith"! Arians did not believe in the deity of Christ. That means that they were simply not Christian. Roman Catholicism is far closer to the truth. Catharism had Gnostic elements and originated during the 10th century, and was anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church at that time as heretical. (And it was.) According to the Cathers, Satan created the world, and Christ is not God. They were also vegetarians, pacifists (no problem here) and held to a form of reincarnation. They also rejected the Old Testament. One good thing was that they believed in having Bibles in the language people spoke, rather than Greek or Latin. So, tell me, should the RCC have condemned Arianism and the Cathars? Wasn't that the right thing to do? Would the Apostles Paul or John have done any differently? If you do not believe in the deity of Christ, you're not Christian.

Now there were some sects which were motivated for good reasons, and which had essentially Christian theology, which the RCC tried to eliminate later - but now you're into the middle ages. It didn't really happen before that, for the RCC didn't exist before that and was not very powerful before 590AD. (It really depended upon the Pope in power at the time.)

BD

[The Mighty Sword]

I realize that. And things did begin to change once the church became a political organization. But the doctrine was still basically sound at that time. Augustine (latter 4th century, early 5th) is the foundation of much of Reformed theology! They specifically say their theology traces to Augustine. John Calvin says this in his writings.

Gregory the Great was the first to try to make the RCC a powerful organization, politically, and to enforce the power of the Pope and the RCC. He was trying to strengthen the church. But that led to all sorts of problems.

Roman Catholics say they can trace their beginnings to Peter. Some Baptists say the same thing. I say that there is no historical basis for such, for either organizations. And it's not the historical background that gives an organization authority, but the Word of God. That alone is the standard. Who cares about the historical background in that regards? And it is true that the RCC slowly devolved from the unified church at the time... but Peter was never a Pope. He was never even a bishop of Rome. The historical records are clear there.


TMS,

You keep bringing up these groups. But the Arians and Cathers were very heretical! They were nowhere near the "true Christian faith"! Arians did not believe in the deity of Christ. That means that they were simply not Christian. Roman Catholicism is far closer to the truth. Catharism had Gnostic elements and originated during the 10th century, and was anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church at that time as heretical. (And it was.) According to the Cathers, Satan created the world, and Christ is not God. So, tell me, should the RCC have condemned Arianism and the Cathars?

Now there were some sects which were motivated for good reasons, and which had essentially Christian theology, which the RCC tried to eliminate later - but now you're into the middle ages. It didn't really happen before that, for the RCC didn't exist before that and was not very powerful before 590AD.

BD

And I agree my point is who do they think they are killing or eliminate
people, possible future Christians, meaning the RCC, thou shalt not kill, still holds true to this day.

[BadDog]

And I agree my point is who do they think they are killing or eliminate people, possible future Christians, meaning the RCC, thou shalt not kill, still holds true to this day.

Hello TMS,

Of course. Agreed. They went far outside any rational boundaries. Due to such things one cry of the Protestant Reformation was the separation of church and state. And it is certainly difficult to determine when the universal church, and the church before Constantine was very unified, became "the Roman Catholic Church."

The Catholic Church began on February 27, 380 when Emperor Theodosius issued his edict, De Fide Catolica, in Thessalonica, published in Constantinople, declaring Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Well, I agree that once Christianity was called the state religion of the Roman Empire, things changed fast! Church offices suddenly took on political powers. But Christianity became the state religion of Rome really starting with Constantine. I can see selecting such a date, though, for the beginning of Roman Catholicism.

People select all sorts of dates for the emergence of the RCC. A professor of a church history course I took even selected a date close to the Reformation (in 1517)! (I believe he selected Pope Martin V, 1417-1431, since his papacy marked the end of the Great Western Schism.) That's crazy! Following are some thoughts on why I like to consider the "reign" of Pope Gregory the Great as the beginnings of the Roman Catholic Church. I've taken actually three classes on church history, because I am intrigued on how God sovereignly worked, especially through the dark ages. (I am planning to take another through an online program. I believe this one focuses on the time from Christ to just before the Reformation.) In each course I tried to determine when I felt the RCC started, and I always ask the professors what they think on this. Following are some thoughts on why Gregory is a good starting point for such things, just for discussion, for I would like to hear what others think on this, though I recognize that this is clearly far off topic for this thread:

Gregory the Great was a Roman patrician who in 575 AD became a monk. He became involved in church administration and in 590 AD was made the Bishop of Rome. (The first monk to become the bishop of Rome, the Pope.) Gregory enforced papal supremacy and established the position of the pope during his "reign." Before that time, the bishops of Rome were not referred to as the Pope. Now granted, Rome was the highest bishopry at the time, and had been recognized for some time as the de facto head of the church in doctrinal matters, but was not yet recognized as the supreme leader of the Church in all matters by most.

Gregory not only carefully administrated in Rome, but he became involved outside Italy. For example, he attacked Donatism in Africa and simony in Gaul. (Both are heretical teachings - we all would agree with that.) But more significantly, he refused to recognize the power of the patriarch (bishop) of Constantinople in his efforts to get recognition of the divine supremacy of the pope.

Gregory also established military troops in Rome for the first time, saying that if the emperor would not defend the pope, he would defend himself, and in doing so he set a precedent. Gregory developed the concept of divided powers: the emperor was God's vicar in temporal matters, and the pope in spiritual matters. He also initiated the concept of clergy celibacy, which we are aware led to all sorts of problems! And considering how hard the times were when he became bishop of Rome, one could say that Gregory the Great essentially saved the RRC. There was famine and the church was endangered by Greeks and barbarians and had been essentially abandoned by the Emperor. Pope Gregory established the RCC as a powerful entity to deal with for centuries to come. With Gregory the papacy took on almost imperial powers.

Early bishops of Rome strove to spread Christianity and to resolve doctrinal disputes. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the center of Christianity essentially became Rome (along with Antioch). Since Constantine (circa 313 AD), the Roman Empire recognized Christianity and even encouraged its existence. However, it was completely under the rule of the emperor, and was only involved in spiritual matters of the church - specifically that of Rome, though they did extend their jurisdiction over doctrinal matters outside Rome. And when we come to medieval times, popes played powerful roles in Western Europe, often struggling with monarchs for political power over wide-ranging affairs of both church and state. They crowned emperors (Charlemagne was the first emperor crowned by a pope) and regulated disputes among secular rulers. It came to be that if the pope did not recognize a sovereign, he would not be recognized by others. The papacy came to have tremendous powers, and we all know that power leads to corruption. Hence, the real issues of the RCC which led eventually to the Protestant Reformation began during the middle ages, IMO after Gregory the Great.

Now by 380 AD some things inconsistent with biblical doctrine had been introduced into Christianity through the Church, I agree. But the Church was not hounding those who refused to cow down to the bishop of Rome. If such groups remained quiet and independent, little was done about it. But after Pope Gregory the Great, the RCC was recognized as a power to be dealt with. Now I don't think we should consider such groups as the Arians as relevant to the RCC abusing its powers, since Arianism is nonChristian in nature. The apostles opposed such groups in their own time.

Now granted the office of the bishop of Rome was recognized more and more as the head of the Church. Boniface I, 418-422, made the following axiom: "Rome has spoken; the cause is finished." Hence by this time the supremacy of Rome in all spiritual matters, not just doctrinal issues, was recognized by many, though not all - in particular in the East where Constantinople ruled supreme. Gelasius, 492-496, was the first bishop of Rome to be called "Vicar of Christ." For that reason, some consider the Roman Catholic Church to have started with his "reign." I do not for the reasons already given, and because the pope had not yet become a powerful political office. But if someone were to say that the RCC started with his bishopry in 492, I could live with that. But the first person called the "pope" was Gregory the Great, though certainly calling oneself the "Vicar of Christ" is an amazing claim as well as the claim that "Rome has spoken; the cause is finished." But these are all well after Constantine.

Regardless, things began to go downhill rapidly once we enter the middle ages. Gregory did many good things, but in his efforts to protect the supremacy of the bishopry of Rome, he caused the Church to become a powerful political agency like never before. I believe that once the church took on political powers that we begin to see more and more sects of Christianity breakling off. But before the middle ages the bishops of Rome's primary involvement was dealing with heretical doctrinal matters in such cases. And in general, the cases they dealt with were heretical in nature.

Now regarding the Anabaptists, IMO there is little evidence, beyond the wild extrapolations of some, that it ever existed before the Protestant Reformation. And similarly, there is no historical evidence that the Waldensians existed before Peter Walso in 1177 AD. Now there were other small Christian organizations and sects around almost from the beginning. But Christianity was highly unified until after the Church office in Rome became a political organization, which did not occur before Constantine. Things went downhill from there slowly. In a very real sense you can say that the Roman Catholics can trace their heritage back to the time of Paul and Peter. But the papacy did not start for at least a few hundred years, and Peter was never even the bishop of Rome, let alone some supreme Pope. The office of Pope started with Gregory, though the RCC will say differently, of course. There were bishops prior to Gregory. But the title of "pope" started with him, though the Catholic church may not acknowledge that. And even though many will say that by the 5th century indeed that the office of the pope was well established, if not in name, and that is essentially true - I agree, yet the issues that eventually led to the Reformation had not yet arisen.

Comments and thoughts?

Thx,

BD

[David Taylor]

Let's work on a timeline.

(removes speculation that we might embue from our present prespective...and see what can be added into it)

What intrigues me, is that some have claimed that the AnaBaptists only originated out of the Protestant Reformation. (P.R.) For arguement's sake, let's use a start-date of the Reformation of 1517. (When Luther nailed the thesis).

If AnaBaptists truly originated out of the P.R., then there shouldn't be any mention of them existing prior to that.


Let's start here, and go backwards. Here are two very clear references from within

650-872 Paulicans (Cornybeare writes)
"And one point in their favor must be noticed, and it is this, Their system was, like that of the European Cathars, in its basal idea and conception alien to persecution; for membership in it depended upon baptism, voluntarily sought for, even with tears and supplications, by the faithful and penitent adult. Into such a church there could be no dragooning of the unwilling. On the contrary, the whole purpose of the scrutiny, to which the candidate for baptism was subjected, was to ensure that his heart and intelligence were won, and to guard against the merely outward conformity. which is all that a persecutor can hope to impose. It was one of the worst results of infant baptism, that by making membership in the Christian church mechanical and outward, it made it cheap; and so paved the way of the persecutor "

920-970 Bogomils, a branch of Paulicans and Cathari(Historian LP Brockett records of them)"I have found, often in unexpected quarters, the most conclusive evidence that these sects were all, during their early history, Baptists, not only in their views on the subjects of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but in their opposition to Pedobaptism, to a church hierarchy, and to the worship of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and in their adherence to church independency and freedom of conscience in religious worship. In short, the conclusion has forced itself upon me that in these Christians of Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Armenia we have an apostolic succession of Christian churches, New Testament churches, and that as early as the twelfth century these churches numbered a converted, believing membership"

(999-1088) Berenger of Tours
“Our Lord Christ requires of thee no more than this. Thou believest that out of His great compassion for the human race, He poured out His blood for them; and that thou, by virtue of this faith, wilt be cleansed by His blood from all sin. He requires of thee, that, constantly mindful of this blood of Christ, thou shouldst use it to sustain the life of thy inner man in this earthly pilgrimage as thou sustainest the life of thy outward man by meat and drink. He also requires of thee that in the faith that God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son as a propitiation for our sins, thou shouldst submit to outward baptism, to represent how thou oughtest to follow Christ in His death and in His resurrection. The bodily eating and drinking of bread and wine—says he—should remind thee of the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ, that whilst thou art refreshed in the inner man by the contemplation of His incarnation and of His passion, thou mayest follow Him in humility and patience.”
(While Berenger doesn't mention re-baptism, he is clearly pronouncing the Baptist view of 'Believers Baptism' and rejection of the same RCC doctrines that Baptists have always held); making his views Baptistic, in the least)


(1117-1131) Peter of Bruys
"The Church should be composed, of true believers, good and just persons: no others had any claim to membership. Baptism was a nullity unless connected with personal faith, but all who believed were under solemn obligation to be baptized, according to the Savior’s command. The rite performed in infancy, was no baptism at all, since it wanted the essential ingredient, faith in Christ. Then, and then only, when that faith was professed, were the converts really baptized."


1131+ The PetroBrusians (recorded by Peter of Cluny. Patrologia Latina vol. 189: Tractatus Contra Petrobrussianos.)
Denied “that children, before the age of understanding, can be saved by the baptism...not another’s, but one’s own faith, together with baptism, saves, as the Lord says, ‘He who will believe and be baptised shall be saved, but he who will not believe shall be condemned"
(Another pre-Luther Proclamation of what is an inherent Baptist teaching.)


(?-1148) Henry of Lausanne -Peter of Cluny()1092-1156 records of Henry
Henry "rejection of the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church; recognition of the Gospel freely interpreted as the sole rule of faith; condemnation of the baptism of infants, of the eucharist, of the sacrifice of the mass, of the communion of saints, and of prayers for the dead"
(Henry's beliefs square harmoniously with Baptist beliefs)


(? - 1184) Eckebert of Schonau (speaking of the Cathars)
"they rejected infant-baptism only, on the ground that infants could not believe, and they taught that baptism should be administered to none but adults."


(This quotation only 7 years after Luther "birthed" the P.R.)
(1524) - Cardinal Hosius, Later President of The Council of Trent
"If the truth of a religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Ana-Baptists; since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished."


(This quotation only 13 years after Luther "birthed" the P.R.)
(1530) Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss contemporary of Luther
"The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time."



For a commonly held belief system common to Baptists, and foreign to the RCC, (adult believers baptism, non-heirarchial, Lord's Supper, non-veneration of Mary and Saints, rejection of Eucharist and transubstantiation, Papal authority, RCC persecution, local congregational authority based on the Bible); there seems to be alot of folks written about prior to the P.R. that doctrinally fit with what is called AnaBaptist or Baptist beliefs.

IMO, this seems to evident to firmly say that the AnaBaptists began after Luther's Thesis, somewhere in the mid 1500s.

(But this is only about two hours worth of research...)

[BadDog]

Thanks David - appreciated.

I will find some time this weekend to read this over carefully. But the bottom line from my perspective is that the term "Anabaptist" is not used in any of those references. Sure, the Anabaptists are known for their view that a believer should be "re-baptized" if all they had experienced was infant baptism.

I agree that there were others who felt that way regarding baptism. Why we see just that in Acts 19. But that does not mean that the Anabaptists started prior to the Reformation; just that there were movements regarding believer's baptism prior to the Reformation.

And there is much more to Anabaptists than simply their position on baptism, just as the same is true of the Baptists today (who are not directly descended to Anabaptists, regardless what some Baptists think).

And regarding the Waldensians, Peter Waldo held to infant baptism along with other RCC theologies. The RCC concern with them was that they promoted lay preaching. But they are not related to the Anabaptists.

I will find it interesting to see what some of believers have said down through the ages regarding baptism and other doctrines which where in opposition to that of the RCC at the time. I have a book which looks at church history through the lenses of various doctrines. I'll see if it has anything to say regarding baptism and movements which promoted lay preaching - something which is interesting.

I think another area of interest is to pursue movements which emphasized getting the printed Word into the local language. (The Cathers held to such a view... unfortunately, they were far from Christian - essentially Gnostics.) But men of God such as Wycliffe, John Hus and Tyndale (even Erasmus) believed strongly in that, and gave their lives for such.


But I did do a little research regarding the purported statement by some Baptists allegedly by Cardinal Hosius:

Hosius was a papal legate at the Council of Trent, and David listed a supposed quote by him regarding Anabaptists. But this statement is not very likely authentic, and I found some comments online regarding what Cardinal Hosius actually did say about Anabaptists in his writings:

Hosius' background:
Born May 5, 1504 in Krakow, Poland, of German parents. Died August 5, 1579. He was a Cardinal from 1561, and a Bishop of Ermland from 1551 until his death.
He was appinted a Legate for Vienna 1560 and was a papal legate for the Council of Trent (1561-1563), as well as a legate for Poland 1566.

He wrote the "Confessio", a famous catechism, in 1577, and his complete works were published in Cologne in 1584. So we can research them to see what he said on Anabapsists. The Catholic Encyclopedia also has much information on him.

Cardinal Hosius' purported "statement:"

"Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the "Trail of Blood" by J. Carroll.

Does this statement exist in his complete works? No. And please notice that the quote by David has him referring to "Anabaptists" rather than Baptists.

The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title "Opera Omnia": D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS - "Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus."

Coloniae
Apud Maternum Cholinum
Anno M. D. L XXXIIII

(In Latin.)

The purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius.

There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius‘ complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless. Similarly, I could find no publication of his with this title.

I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius‘ letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.

Nowhere in the letters of Hosius are the "reformers" referred to as such. Rather, they are referred to as "Lutherani", "Calvinisti", "Zuingliani" and, especially in his other works, "haeretici". The purported statement of Hosius uses language he never uses in his "Opera omnia", and so its authenticity must be called into question.

The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either. (The second purported statement is quoted in Note 1 below). The said statements are purported to be found on pages 112, 113 of "Apud Opera". However, only one statement can be found crossing over from page 112 to 113. How can you get two different statements, both starting on page 112 and both ending on page 113? (The only possibility would be if one statement were embedded in the other, but that is clearly not the case here.)

-----------
PART II: What Cardinal Hosius DID have to say about the "Anabaptists".

Cardinal Hosius meant by the term "Anabaptist" a general term for any kind of re-baptizing sect. We see the proof of this in his assertion that the Donatists were Anabaptists. But we know, of course, that the Donatists had completely different beliefs from modern day Baptists (or even 16th century Anabaptists). For example, they only believed in re-baptism for those Christians who had apostasized under persecution and later returned. Thy did not say infant baptism was wrong, they did not day baptism must be by immersion only, they did not say baptism was merely a symbol. So it is absolutely wrong for modern-day Baptists to suggest that Cardinal Hosius testifies to their existence at the time of Augustine!

The above research was done by someone else, not me.

Please note that the expression "anabaptism" is from the Greek (ANA - "again") and is used to refer to those who believe in re-baptizing. There is an example above that some who were supposedly Anabaptists even held to infant baptism, yet wanted to allow those who had left the faith during severe persecution to be allowed back into the fellowship of believers, after being "re-baptized."

I believe that is probably what has led to such misunderstandings by some Baptists in the past. And it is interesting that the groups that are really direct descendants of the Anabaptists are the Amish and Mennonites - not the Baptists, for whatever that is worth. The Cardinal is correct in that there have been movements regarding "re-baptism" for various reasons since before the time of Constantine. I don't know why some Baptists want to find some link of Baptists back to the time of Christ.

Similarly, Henry of Lausanne may have held some beliefs similar to today's Baptists, but that does not mean that the Anabaptist movement traces back to him or earlier. (I am a member of a Baptist church, just FYI.) The Baptists historically are reformed in theology. You cannot find any meetings which they've had in which their theology is shown to be other than Reformed (when you go back a ways into history - sure, there are Arminian Baptists organizations and churches now).

God has sovereignly protected the Church; there is no doubt about that. And the RCC can trace its origins far back, there is no doubt about that either. But there were no "popes" until Gregory the Great, and the Church of Christ was highly unified until Constantine, there is little doubt about that either. Further, there have always been those who have recognized errors of those who were clergy throughout history. The concept of a single "bishop" who was like a head "elder" is not a biblical concept (not that there is something wrong from organizing a church in a city as such), yet we find no precedent or teaching of such in scripture. But that did begin to happen from the earliest days - man's decision to do such.

Why should Baptists, or others, strive to prove that they are descendants of some mythical Church from antiquity? Our focus should be on the teaching of the Bible now. A real interest of mine is how the idea of having the Bible only in Greek, Hebrew or Latin originated and who were those who opposed such throughout church history, and have supported having the Bible translated into what were referred to as "vulgar" languages? (IMO the KJV-only movement is the same sort of movement, and as such opposes what God is doing in people's lives through the Bible. of course, that is not their intent at all... but neither was it the intention to oppose God's use of the Word by those who opposed such translation before and after the Reformation - which lead, for example, to the Separatists and Puritans.)


That said, I'm not going to debate you on this, David. If you, and others, are convinced that the Anabaptists go back far before the Reformation, OK by me. I personally do not see some mythical, mysterious "church" going down through history since the time of Christ. God has always had individuals who have seen error, and held to the truth, or for the most part, the truth. But why must there be some church traced back as such? I will say that just finding evidence of those who have held to "believer's baptism" down through church history is not sufficient evidence for your claim. I acknowledge such individuals. But the Anabaptist movement started with the Reformation - it was one of several movements at the time.

Take care,

BD