Anabaptists v. Magisterials

This week's paper. A side note, in studying Church history, I have found that the Baptists did not start "directly with Jesus" as I had been told, but with three men in 1525. Just a thought.

The bleak story that is the Church on the eve of the Reformation should be one to make even the most die-hard Roman Catholic cringe. The state of the Church had digressed so greatly that not one, but many new “churches” came into being with the Reformation, each claiming superiority and true doctrine. Gone were they days of simple faith and fear of persecution. The days now opened up to empires being ruled by fear of excommunication in the faith, papal power backing being achieved through money and even the papal seat being fought over. This is the picture that greets the student of the Reformation and it is no surprise that Luther, Zwingli and others fought against “The Church” and each other in attempts to re-establish order and one true faith.
Historians have labeled four major reforming movements as the most influential: the Anabaptist, the Anglican, the Lutheran and the Reformed. Each of these movements emphasized different “aspects” of the faith they felt had been lost by the Catholic Church. The latter three have been lumped together and described as “the Magisterial Protestants” while the former is described as “Radical Protestants” with some lesser-known movements. This argument will not focus on the Anglican movement as its beginning seems to have dealt less with theological and reforming matters and more with a silly king who didn’t get his way; it cannot be argued that change and reformation did eventually occur. The Anabaptists mirror the Magisterial Protestants in their views of Scripture and the Priesthood of all believers, but differ in views of salvation and the separation of Church and State.
The Reformation owes its beginning to the Word of God. Through men like Wycliffe determining to translate the Bible to common languages and Erasmus who created the first Greek-Latin Parallel New Testament, people began reading and hearing God’s Word in their own language for the first time. With this, the Anabaptists, Lutherans and Reformed readily agreed to the importance of Scripture. Moving away from the Roman Catholic thought of tradition having final authority, these movements saw a need to go back to what the Apostolic fathers used, what the Apostles themselves created through the Holy Spirit: Scripture. Martin Luther (father of the Lutherans) and Ulrich Zwingli (co-father of the Reformed) held close to each other’s beliefs regarding Scripture as Roger Olson states: “Like Luther, Zwingli strongly emphasized the Scripture principle- that the Bible is the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice and stands entirely above all human traditions, which must be judged by it.” (Roger Olson, 1999, 401) The Anabaptists took this lesson from these men well. “Luther had taught that common people have a right to search the Bible for themselves. It had been his guide to salvation- why not theirs?” (Olson, 1999, 417) In truth this was the greatest area of continuity for the Protestants.
Another area of great continuity was the view of the priesthood. The Roman Catholic tradition had always held that only some were allowed to be priests. This implied that God spoke only through these men in order to reveal who He was and His Scripture to the “common people.” In order to “fit” into the Protestant Reformation, believing that “every true Christian [is] a priest unto God without need of a special mediator other than Jesus Christ” (Olson, 1999, 371) is required. Martin Luther showed himself to be the beginning of this thought and tradition as he “...brushed aside the traditional view of the church... and returned to the early Christian view of a community of Christian believers in which all believers are priests called to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.” (Bruce Shelley, 2008, 241) This thought process shook the foundations of Catholicism as the hierarchy they held onto so tightly gave them so much of their power. The Anabaptists held onto this thought as well with their principle known as “congregational view of Church authority” (Shelley, 2008, 254) which adheres to what is known as “believer’s baptism” as well as addressing this priesthood. “Each believer, then, was both a priest to his fellow believers and a missionary to unbelievers.” (Shelley, 2008, 254) Though there were other areas of agreement between the Anabaptists and the Magisterial Protestants, these two seem most prominent. Olson attributes a third, which is true in form, but is not in function. Speaking of the Anabaptists, he states: “With Luther and Zwingli and other Protestants, they accepted salvation by grace through faith alone, the final authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers” (Olson, 1999, 417-8)
The Anabaptist movement got its name from its opponents claiming they were “re-baptizing” the people. (Shelley, 2008, 248) This came from their belief that
Only persons who had reached the awakening of conscience, or age of accountability, could repent and express faith, and only when this is done is baptism effective as a sign and symbol of conversion.” (Olson, 1999, 393)
In this view lies another view known as “synergism” which implies a cooperative effort in bringing a person to salvation. (Olson, 1999, 120) This view directly contradicts the views of Luther and Zwingli who strictly adhered to monergism, which implies an effort just from God in bringing a person to salvation. For a person to be baptized when they can make a conscious decision to follow Christ implies that they could choose to not make that same decision. For a person to simply be baptized as an infant, not of his or her own choice, implies that it is God’s choosing or not choosing a person to come to faith. The Magisterial Protestants followed Augustine’s argument of monergism and even added upon. Luther explained and adhered to this thought with his “theology of the cross,” which “shows the true condition of humans as helpless sinners alienated from God in mind and heart and desperately in need of God’s rescue mission, the cross of Christ.” (Olson, 1999, 382) The Anabaptists traced their argument of synergism to Cyprian and “emphasized personal, conscious decision of repentance and faith.” (Olson, 1999, 428) To this day, there is no concise agreement between the descendants of these movements.
Another disagreement between these movements regards the separation of Church and state. Beginning with Constantine in 312, the rulers of the land were involved with and even had influence over the affairs of the Church. Though the Roman Catholic tradition didn’t appreciate emperors meddling within their business, they were quick to welcome opportunities to meddle in the business of the secular government. The Magisterial Protestants agreed with this tradition and even expanded it to some degrees. John Calvin embodies enmeshment of Church and State within the Reformation. In regards to Geneva, “he reigned as virtual dictator of the city.” (Olson, 1999, 409) This is not separation of Church and State by any means. Zwingli didn’t rule his town of Zurich, but he still was greatly enmeshed within its government. One Anabaptist (Balthasar Hubmaier) “criticized those Protestant leaders like Zwingli who turned dissenters over to magistrates for torture and execution.” (Olson, 1999, 419) The simple name of “Magisterial Protestants” implies that they adhered to, worked with and (as seen in Calvin) even were the magistrates. The Anabaptists believed that: “Even the magisterial Protestant churches of Europe were not true New Testament ‘believers’ churches’ but state churches dominated by secular authorities in which it was impossible to distinguish between genuine and false believers.” (Olson 1999, 419)
As a whole, the Anabaptist movement felt that the Protestant movement was not reformed enough. From this, they took things further, thought a little bit differently and got them into a heap of trouble throughout Europe. Many became isolated (partly as a result of persecution) while others were rowdy during the services of the other movements. Many were even given a “third baptism” and were drowned in the river. Olson explained it well when he wrote: “Anabaptist theology may be summarized by saying that it was an attempt by radical Protestant Reformers to complete the Protestant Reformation by recovering the Christianity of the apostolic era.” (Olson, 1999, 428) They agreed with the Magisterial Protestants over Scripture, the priesthood of all believers and the form of salvation (by grace, through faith), but disagreed about the function of salvation (free will over predestination) and the role of the State in regards to the Church. The entire Reformation movement has been placed in the annals of history as a major shift in Christian thinking, explaining how the arguments of the 16th century shape the debates of today.
As for where I would stand in this time, I do not know. I lean towards the Anabaptist movement, but don’t like what it has become over time. They were too radical, using their instincts as opposed to their brains. The embodied Luther’s mentality of “my way or the highway” and in turn made themselves exclusionists. Their pacifism doesn’t make sense because it only applies to them, not the government. “It’s okay for you to fight for me, but I won’t fight for myself” does not equate. The Reformed movement seems extremely rigid, namely in predestination, which seems to contradict God’s character (at least in my eyes). The Hubmaier put it well in describing this view as God saying “Com here” but thinking “stay there.”
On this thought alone, I don’t think I would have followed them. Luther himself was bull headed and inconsistent, but I respect his movement most. Though he was inconsistent, his followers took the reigns and came up with a brilliant Church that relied on the Bible for its firsts, but understood that God does encounter people through tradition. I would like to think that I would have endured Luther to worship as a Lutheran.