Anabaptists

INTRODUCTION
The original Anabaptists (re-baptizers) were a schismatic group arising in the 4th century. They denied the validity of baptism by Catholic clergy and therefore required the "re-baptism" of its members. They believed Catholic baptism was invalid because they believed that the Catholic clergy were corrupt, making the sacrament of baptism illegitimate. However, when the Anabaptists are discussed in the context of apostolic succession, it is usually in reference to a diverse group known as part of the Radical Reformers beginning around 1522 - some groups of which were considered extremely radical and violent even by medieval standards. It should be noted that these 16th Century Anabaptists not the same as the 4th Century Novatian Anabaptists (see Noviatianism ) because the 4th Century Anabaptists did not reject infant baptism per se - they just rejected baptism performed by the Catholic clergy. It was the Reformation-age Anabaptists who began to reject all forms of infant baptism, hence their tendency to re-baptize. Eventually, the term "Anabaptist" was used for all sorts of groups who rejected the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church (1)

ANABAPTIST CHRISTOLOGY
The main unifying doctrine among the various groups of Anabaptists was their rejection of infant baptism - aside from that, it is difficult to to make generalizations about them, primarily because of their lack of a formal declaration of faith. They placed emphasis on isolated free church bodies, usually preferring to call themselves Brethren (i.e., Swiss Brethren, Polish Brethren, etc) or named after their leader (i.e., Hutterites, Mennonites, etc.). From what McGoldrick characterizes as a "curious lack of confessional statements" (2), even the Anabaptist scholar Friedmann admits that Anabaptistism is "existential" rather than having a formal theology (3).

It is believed by most scholars that, as a general rule, Anabaptists adopted an orthodox Trinitarian view (4); however, there definitely existed heretical views, particularly among the Socinians (Polish Brethren influenced heavily by Faustus Socinus). They revived the ancient heresies developed by Valentinus and Apollinarius in which the Incarnation of Jesus Christ was denied, partly influenced by the Bogomils and Cathars. Their beliefs can be found in the 1605 Racovian Catechism, in which neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit are divine; instead, Jesus was merely an extraordinary man given special powers by God, and that Jesus' crucifixion did not sufficiently atone for mankind's sins:

"If by the terms divine nature or substance I am to understand the very essence of God, I do not acknowledge such a divine nature in Christ; for this were repugnant to both right reason and to the Holy Scriptures." (5)

The Italian Brethren, influenced heavily by such writings as Michael Servetus' anti-Trinitarian Restitution of Christianity, held similar views like the notion that Jesus was merely the son of Joseph and Mary filled with divine powers, angels were merely men commissioned by God for specific purposes, and other such curiosities which were articulated at an Anabaptist/Unitarian synod in Venice in 1550. (6)

Elsewhere, the Dutch Brethren held a quite unorthodox view of the Incarnation - they believed that while Jesus was born of Mary, he brought his flesh from heaven and simply passed through Mary's body like water passes through a pipe, as Melchior Hofmann (c. 1495-1543) stated, "If Christ had taken our flesh from Mary, it must be the accursed flesh of Adam, and then he could not have been our Redeemer" (7). This near-Docetist (see Docetism) view is summed up by Bernard Rothmann (c. 1495-1535):

"If it had been Mary's flesh [Christ born of Mary] that died for us, my God, what comfort and courage could we derive from that? That would be like paying for one sin with another and to wash and cleanse one's uncleanness with another." (8)

ANABAPTIST SOTERIOLOGY
Although Martin Luther denied free will, Anabaptists generally more closely resembled Catholic views on salvation; in other words, Luther insisted that man is totally depraved, whereas Anabaptists denied that mankind capable of freely chosing to accept the free gift of grace from God. They were influenced strongly by Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus' work De Liberio Arbitrio. Like Catholics, they emphasized the enduring obedience of faith as opposed to Martin Luther's novel sola fide doctrine. As Deitrich Philips (c. 1504-1568) wrote:

"No one can be born again, ... and no one can believe the gospel, except he first sincerely repent, as the Lord Jesus Christ himself testifies (Mt 3:2); for he taught the people repentance first of all, and then faith, and so he also commanded his apostles to do (Lk 24:27)...All who from the teaching of the law learn to fear God, recognize sin, sincerely repent, turn away from their sinful life...and with penitent heart believe the gospel and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior are born anew of God by his eternal Word in the power of his Holy Spirit." (9)

With their emphasis on obedience, a life of self-denial of worldly-things was promoted, described as "an inner surrender and conquest of self" (10). This is what prompted Robert Friedmann to assert "In this regard Anabaptism almost converges toward [Catholic] monasticism, yet, in contrast to it stays in the world carrying on a normal life with family" (11). This is very similar to 2x2s, even to the point that the Anabaptists insisted that this ascetic lifestyle was the only way to salvation (12) - this insistance on a way of life, rather than actual theology, should sound familiar to current and ex-2x2 members.

ANABAPTIST ATTITUDES TOWARD SACRED SCRIPTURE
Such inherent ambiguity of doctrine was also applied to even their attitude toward Holy Scripture. There was a tendency to place more emphasis on the "internal witness" of the Spirit (13), rather than biblical exegesis. They honored the New Testament over the Old, perhaps in order to reject the idea of ecclesiastical hierarchy, and favored the Gospels and Peter's letters over Paul's (14). Williams notes that "elements of several systems of interpretation - Catholic, normative Protestant, Spiritualist, and Rationalist - are to be found in their tracts and sermons alongside their more characteristic efforts." (15) While they did uphold the authority of Scripture (16), particularly when defending their ecclectic beliefs (17), their endorsement of Scripture's primacy left something to be desired, as Anabaptist Denck was led to write:

"I esteem the Holy Scriptures above all human treasure: yet not so much as I do the Word of God which is living, potent, eternal, free and independent of all the elements of this world: for it is God Himself, it is Spirit and not letter, written without pen or paper so that it can never be blotted out. Therefore salvation is not bound up with the Scriptures, however good and useful they may be for that purpose. The reason is this. It is not possible for the Scriptures to make a bad heart good. But a good heart illuminated with the light of God (a heart with a Divine spark in it) is improved by everything. The Scriptures are for the good and salvation of believers,but for unbelievers they are like everything else, only for their damnation. Therefore the elect of God can be saved without preaching and without Scriptures." (18)

This degeneration into Spiritualism eventually led Denck to believe regard the sacraments as superfluous, writing, "See that you seek God where He is to be sought, in the temple and dwelling-place of the Divine glory, which is your heart and your soul." (19) In general, the influence of mysticism and spiritualism in Anabaptist thought is readily apparent; for example, it is seen in the writings of Ulrich Stadler, who was a Hutterite leader of the Moravian Anabaptists (influenced by the extremely radical Thomas Muntzer who played a significant role in the Peasants' War in 1524):

"Whoever wished to use the Scripture with true reverence and not to attribute to it more than it deserves, ... the same must radically separate the Scriptures and the spoken word from the inner word of the heart....This living word is internally witnessed to by the outer word, if one pays close attention to it. It is like a sign on an inn which witnesses to the wine in the cellar. But the sign is not the wine." (20)

Similarly, we read this from one of the oldest Anabaptist sermons, "Let everyone take heed to the Speaker who speaks in all hearts. He will surely teach one what to do, if one takes good heed....Give heed to the Speaker who evermore speaks in hearts; thus you shall find in yourselves a true witness, never to sin against God." (21) Denck wrote in his treatise The Law of God:

"He who truly possesses truth can determine it without Scripture. The scribes [Lutheran theologians] could never attain to this because they did not receive their truth from the truth. For those, on the other hand, who have it in their hearts, ... the written law was abolished. Not that they may discard it; rather, even though they do not always understand its full testimony, they have truth and righteousness in their hearts by which they are not misled." (22)

As an example, Hutter wrote to the Brethren in Tirol that God had revealed himself in visions of three suns and two rainbows appearing together, also he admitted did not know what these "signs from God" actually meant (23).

This emphasis on an subjective "inner witness", while convenient for Anabaptists, led to only more discord and disagreement. Conrad Grebel, the leader of the Swiss Brethren, separated from Zwingli (24). Grebel confronted Muntzer for introducing unbiblical hymns (25), and so further fracturing of the Anabaptist movement into Spiritualism continued. In general, they held theologians in contempt, calling them "scribes". This belief that they alone were the people of God due to their inner revelations from God is what led Muntzer to believe that he came into possession of the key of David, "whereby he can unlock the book of seven seals, the Bible,and discern the spirits." (26). He was led (perhaps like William Irvine?) to certain apocalyptic visions and predictions of eminent destruction of the world (27).

ANABAPTISTS ON BAPTISM
As stated earlier, Anabaptists denied infant baptism, preferring instead a "believer's baptism". It appears that they did not believe in true baptismal regeneration (although Dietrich Philips' Regeneration of the New Creature comes close), but rather that baptism was an essential part of initiation into the group. Balthasar Hubmaier, the influential German Anabaptist scholar wrote that water baptism "is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, in that it introduces the believer into the church, within which alone forgiveness is found." (28). Therefore, just like membership in the fellowship was essential for salvation, baptism was "essential" only in that it represented one's entry into that fellowship. The primacy of membership in the group is also underscored by the fact that baptism for the Hutterites, required the surrender of possessions for the benefit of the poor (29). It should be noted that Hubmaier, unlike 2x2s, would baptize by pouring rather than total immersion, and, he had been known to baptize infants of parents who were "weak" in the faith (30). In fact, baptism by immersion was the exception rather than the rule for Anabaptists, unlike 2x2s (31). Actually, as McGoldrick notes, "Of much greater significance to the Anabaptists than the mode of baptism was their understanding that the sacrament initiated the believer into the life of the Nachfolge, discipleship. The Brethren regarded baptism as a token that the believer was placing himself under the discipline of the community somewhat in the manner that a medieval Catholic might have sought membership in a monastic house. Monks were exempt from civic and military responsibilities, and most Anabaptists sought the same exemptions. (32) The Brethren, as a rule, would not swear oaths, bear arms, or serve in any civil capacity." (33)

A BRIEF WORD ON INFANT BAPTISM
It should be noted that absolutely nowhere is infant baptism condemned. In John 3:5, Jesus told Nicodemus that being born again by water and spirit was a requirement for entry into heaven; this can only be true if baptism involves a true removal of sin (Acts 22:16). Through this we are baptized into Christ's death and as a new creation:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:3-4)

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5)

This is why Peter wrote, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21).

For Catholics, baptism involves the true removal of sin - for infants it is the stain of Original Sin (1 Cor 15:21-22) which is removed as they become part of the Body of Christ. It is not a mere coincidence that Paul wrote in Colossians 2:11-12 that the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision, performed on infants - Gen 7:9-14) was replaced by baptism (performed on infants). Of course adults were baptized in the Bible - this is because all the converts to Christianity were adults already. Yet nowhere in Scripture is infant baptism rejected; in fact, Jesus specifically said, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Lk 19:14), and people did bring their infants to him (Lk 18:15). Entire households, which must have included children, were baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16), which is why Peter said:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:38-39)

Those who accept only an adult "believers baptism" (i.e., Anabaptists) are confronted with a few problems. First, exactly what is the biblically-acceptable "age of reason"? Also, exactly where in Scripture is a person "born again" by answering an altar call, accepting Jesus as your "personal Savior", or standing up at Convention? There are several examples of someone being saved by another person's faith; for example, those parents who sprinkled the blood of the lamb on the doorpost saved their children (Ex 12:13), the servant was saved because of the centurion's faith (Mt 8:5), the Canaanite women's faith saved her daughter (Mt 15:21), and in Luke 7:1 "just say the word and let my servant be healed". In exactly the same way, it is the parents' faith that brings the infant into the Body of Christ as a new creation.

Finally, infant baptism was practiced by the earliest Christians, as seen in their writings:

"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." (Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition, 21)

"the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants" (Origen, Commentary on Romans)

CONCLUSION
On the surface, the following similarities between Anabaptists and 2x2s are noteworthy:

Both groups rejected both Catholicism and Protestantism in general.

They both had no formal declaration of doctrine (2x2s even less so)

They both rely on a subjective hermeneutical analysis instead of scriptural exegesis - for the Anabaptists it was known as the "inner witness" and for 2x2s it is known as "having the right spirit".

Membership in their ascetic lifestyle is an absolute requirement for salvation

Both deny the importance of formal theological training, regarding their opponents with scorn

Nevertheless, the 2x2 historian who would claim apostolic origins encounters several difficulties:

1) There is absolutely no evidence of a succession of Anabaptistic thought from the time of Christ to the 16th Century - recall that the 4th Century Anabaptists were Catholic Novatian heretics, not Reformed Protestants.

2) There is no evidence of succession of Anabaptistic thought to modern-day 2x2s.

3) Even Anabaptists from the 16th Century never claimed apostolic succession!

4) There is evidence that Anabaptist thought has developed into other groups, like Mennonites, yet there is no evidence of the presence of 2x2s until the late 19th-early 20th Century.

5) The similarities between the two are too generic to actually prove direct links; for example, when actual doctrines are evaluated, the Anabaptists are found to be sub-Christian.

As is often the case, those who would pretend that Anabaptists represent a link in the chain of apostolic succession have some competition. From The Trail of Blood to John T. Christian to modern-day Baptist scholars, there are those who have claimed to be direct descendants from Anabaptists; for example, Holliday writes, “In faith the Anabaptists of the Reformation were one with Baptists of today.” (34). Another Baptist scholar, however, disagrees:

“In the sixteenth century the designation Anabaptist was applied to a wide spectrum of movements on the so-called left wing of the Reformation, many of which had little in common except mutual opposition to both Catholicism and Protestantism.” (35)

And so, upon examination of Anabaptist tendencies, it becomes clear that this diverse group arose without any historical precedent. W.R. Estep, another Baptist historian states “that "not one of the Swiss Anabaptist leaders came from a Waldensian background.... All of the early Anabaptist leaders came originally from the Roman Church...or directly out of Catholicism into Anabaptist life." (36) This is what leads Francis Nigel Lee (a Protestant scholar who absolutely not a Catholic sympathizer, as I know from my personal corresponce with him) to conclude:

"True, some of the simpler Anabaptists -- such as the widow Idelette Stordeur, even before she presbyterianized and married the Protestant Reformer John Calvin -- were indeed sincere Christians. Yet as to their distinctives, even when at their very best, the Anabaptist leaders can most appropriately be described as sub-Christian. What was good in them, did not originate with them. What originated with them, was not good. "(37)

==============================================

(1) Harold S. Bender and Robert Friedman, “Anabaptist”, Mennonite Encyclopedia, Scottdale, PA (Mennonite Publishing House: 1995) I, pp. 113-116.
(2) James E. McGoldrick, Baptist Successionism: a crucial crusade in Baptist history, Lanham, Maryland (Scarecrow Press: 1994), p. 90.
(3) Friedmann, Theology of Anabaptism, 18.
(4) John S. Oyer, "Anabaptism in Central Germany II", Mennonite Quarterly Review, 1961 35:23
(5) Racovian Catechism, tr. Thomas Rees: London: Longman, Hurs, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1818, p. 55.
(6) Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and Its Antecedents, Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press 1945, p. 84.
(7) Henry Elias Dosker, The Dutch Anabaptists, Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1921, p. 161.
(8) Rothmann, "Confession of Faith", Anabaptism in Outline, p. 36.
(9) Dietrich Philips, "The Church of God", in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, 236-237.
(10) Robert Friedmann, "Anabaptism and Protestantism", Mennonite Quarterly Review 1950 24:22.
(11) Friedmann, p 20.
(12) Davis, Anabaptism and Asceticism, p. 129-217.
(13) H. G. Reventflow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World, John Bowden trans., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985: p. 53.
(14) C. Norman Kraus, ed., Evangelicalism and Anabaptism Scottdale PA: Herald Press, 1979, pp. 173-174.
(15) George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962 p. 830.
(16) Angel Mergal and George Williams,ed., Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957, p. 75.
(17) H. G. Reventflow, p. 53.
(18) Harry Emerson Fosdick, ed., Great Voices of the Reformation: An Anthology, New York: Random House, 1952: p.300-301.
(19) Fosdick, p. 302.
(20) Ulrich Stadler, "Concerning the Living and the Written Words" In Anabaptism in Outline: Selected Primary Documents, ed. Walter Klaassen, et al. Scottdale PA: Herald Press, 1981, p. 143.
(21) "Two Early Anabaptist Tracts" ed and tr. J.C. Wenger, Mennonite Quarterly Review, 1948, 22:38.
(22) Selected Writings of Hans Denck ed. and tr. E.J. Furcha with Ford Lewis Battles: Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1975, p.60.
(23) Jacob Hutter, Brotherly Faithfulness: Epistles from a Time of Persecution, tr. Hutterian Society of Brothers: Rifton NY: Plough Publ House, 1979, p. 21.
(24) Robert C. Walton, "Was There a Turning Point of the Zwinglian Reformation?" in The Anabaptists and Thomas Muntzer ed. James M. Stayer and W.O.Packull (Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt Publ Co, 1980) pp. 66-71.
(25) Grebel, "Letters to Thomas Muntzer", in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, p. 75.
(26) Williams, The Radical Reformation, p. 51.
(27) ibid.
(28) Armour, Anabaptist Baptism, p. 46.
(29) Andreas Ehrenpreis and Claus Felbinger, Brotherly Community:the Highest Command of Love (Rifton, NY: Plough Publ House, 1979) pp.18-19, 60-61.
(30) Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, Anabaptist Theologian and Martyr, ed. W.R. Estep Jr, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1978) p 185.
(31) Harold S. Bender, "Baptism", Mennonite Encyclopedia I, 224-228).
(32) Davis, Anabaptism and Asceticism, p. 200.
(33) McGoldrick, p. 116.
(34) Holliday, Baptist Heritage, p 37.
(35) McGoldrick, p. 87.
(36) R. Estep: The Anabaptist Story, (Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1975) p. 20 n. 38.
(37) F.N. Lee, The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren