tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post8385133159568889532..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Did Anabaptists Believe in Justification by Faith Alone?Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-13340658014026515422010-03-15T01:53:07.613-07:002010-03-15T01:53:07.613-07:00You may find this chart on calvinist and anabaptis...You may find this chart on calvinist and anabaptist differences of value: http://mattstone.blogs.com/christian/2010/03/how-is-calvinist-christianity-and-anabaptist-christianity-different.html?cid=6a00d8341bffb053ef0120a912e3eb970bMatt Stonehttp://mattstone.blogs.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-65963654839920880592010-02-20T19:25:35.348-08:002010-02-20T19:25:35.348-08:00Claymore,
You need not spend a dime to read Calvin...Claymore,<br />You need not spend a dime to read Calvin's Institute. You can access that here:<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.toc.html<br /><br />Peter indeed had difficulties, but eventually he got it right. I don't think Calvin and Luther ever got it right.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-77477131707199814692010-02-20T04:27:59.842-08:002010-02-20T04:27:59.842-08:00I have not a set of the Institutes. It should be ...I have not a set of the Institutes. It should be remembered that Calvin wrote his first edition of them when he was twenty-four, and still coming out of Romanism. I think that Jesus said it best when He said that no man having drunk old wine straightway desires new, for he saith the old is better. When people have been so long in a system of error and apostasy, they have trouble recognising that the old is corrupt and the new is a different matter all together. Peter had trouble with this when he went to Antioch an caused a dissembly which Paul had to rebuke openly. James had trouble with it when he encouraged Paul to take upon himself the Nazarite vow to show the Jews that he was not opposed to the law (and he was not, for he did circumcise Timothy).Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26304190840176732982010-02-19T20:45:15.663-08:002010-02-19T20:45:15.663-08:00Mr. Ross also wrote a paper on "Were the Refo...Mr. Ross also wrote a paper on "Were the Reformers Heretics?" Ross cites extensive quotes from Calvin and Luther re: baptismal regeneration. Certainly a worthy read:<br /><br />http://sites.google.com/site/faithalonesaves/salvationAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-29265031493999433722010-02-19T19:41:59.625-08:002010-02-19T19:41:59.625-08:00Claymore,
Have you read Calvin's Institutes? ...Claymore,<br /><br />Have you read Calvin's Institutes? My reading of that, and I believe without bias, reads something different than what you are paraphrasing.<br /><br />Thomas Ross has some good material on the reformers and baptism in his book soon to be published, "Heaven Only for the Baptized?" which you can obtain in pdf, I believe, at his website.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-47057488381151668452010-02-19T18:26:00.865-08:002010-02-19T18:26:00.865-08:00bhardecker,
I earlier recommended that people obt...bhardecker,<br /><br />I earlier recommended that people obtain and read Edward Poole-Connor's book "Evangelicalism in England." In this book (I cannot state exactly where as I either misplaced it or left it behind when I made my most recent relocation), he gives an account of what the Reformers truly believed about water baptism and its relation to redemption, supported by quotes from their own writings. I will try to put what he said into my own words, but it is going to be rather loose, and I may forget a few of his major points.<br /><br />The reformers strongly rejected the RCC view of the Lord's Table (transubstantiation), so why were they not as equally strong concerning the other ordinance? What happens oftentimes is that people confuse the thing itself with what it represents. Water baptism represents the work of salvation done in the heart - literally speaking, Luke's Gospel says that John preached that men must be baptised in repentance (overwhelmed by repentance). The water merely was an outward sign of what God did in the heart of the person. One reformer (I forget which) stated it simply: of course water baptism does not make a person saved.<br /><br />If you can find and read the book, it explains the matter better than my paraphrase can do it, and with much more detail than I can remember offhand. I think you would find it in chapter seven, but I may be mistaken as to the actual location. I am sorry to be able to provide no information as to where to find the book, as it is out-of-print. The only suggestion is to look at second-hand stores in Britain. However, once you read it, you will find that the Reformers actually believed practically identical to us - their followers did not recognise what they actually meant in their theological books, and so advocated the sacerdotal position which Romanism took.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22141226902173576122010-02-19T05:09:41.697-08:002010-02-19T05:09:41.697-08:00Clarification: By emphasis I meant "for Salva...Clarification: By emphasis I meant "for Salvation." Their doctrinal positions seem to be as sacramentalist as the RCC. As Baptists, we emphasize baptism, but only for those who have repented of sin and self, and have trusted in Christ alone.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38922723510338537612010-02-19T05:02:26.008-08:002010-02-19T05:02:26.008-08:00The Reformers themselves seem to put so much empha...The Reformers themselves seem to put so much emphasis on baptism that one can't help but wonder if they truly believe in justification by faith alone.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86020379053912329802010-02-13T07:32:01.253-08:002010-02-13T07:32:01.253-08:00Greg,
Would you define your position on lordship ...Greg,<br /><br />Would you define your position on lordship salvation. I may be misinformed as to the dictionary that you use, but growig up, I heard one definition which would be salvation by works (one must be walking with God before God justifies him contrary to what Amos says). If you meant that when one accepts Christ as Saviour he accepts Him as Lord as well, and this is proven by a changed life and good works, I heartily agree.Claymorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45347569498778737942010-02-12T19:26:41.606-08:002010-02-12T19:26:41.606-08:00P.S. Sorry, please make my quote from "The Re...P.S. Sorry, please make my quote from "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Verduin, p. 105.<br /><br />As my quote (and others like it) demonstrate, some of the Anabaptists who criticized just. by faith alone may have been targeting the perversion of that doctrine into antinomianism/non-lordship salvation/carnal Christian theory to put it into today's terms.Greg Gibsonhttp://www.jesussaidfollowme.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-42443651792191833542010-02-12T19:10:25.494-08:002010-02-12T19:10:25.494-08:00Mike,
I'm not saying that these New Testament...Mike,<br /><br />I'm not saying that these New Testament Christians were Luther fans. Thy just believed in justification by faith.<br /><br />Greg,<br /><br />Thanks for the quotes.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86445111837232560082010-02-12T16:04:25.042-08:002010-02-12T16:04:25.042-08:00“Balthasar Hubmaier complained that in the camp of...“Balthasar Hubmaier complained that in the camp of the Reformers men had learned only the first two of three pivotal doctrines of the Christ faith…(We are saved by faith.) The second was ‘of ourselves we cannot do any good’…Both of these are true enough, says this teacher at the Second Front. But then he goes on to say that ‘Under cover of these two half-truths all evil, unfaithfulness and unrighteousness have gained the upperhand completely…one sees nothing but drinking, gourmandizing, blaspheming, practicing usury, lying, cheating, abusing, forcing, stealing, robbing, playing, dancing, flirting, loafing, committing adultery, tyrannizing, slaying, etc., etc. The third lesson, which men in the Protestant camp had not mastered, said this Hubmaier, is that faith without works is dead” (Verduin, p. 105).Greg Gibsonhttp://www.jesussaidfollowme.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76097631327776534272010-02-07T19:23:26.556-08:002010-02-07T19:23:26.556-08:00Hello,
For many months now, I have been digging in...Hello,<br />For many months now, I have been digging into this question of whether the 16th-century Anabaptists believed in Lutheran justification by faith. The bottom line is that they did not expressly come out against it, nor for it, as far as I have researched (and I have read several thousand pages of Anabaptist history in the last few months).<br />The quotes you give above are ambiguous as to whether they believed in forensic or ontological justification. Yes, they could be read as a support for forensic justification, but they could also be read in the light of ontological justification.<br />We must then look at "secondary" quotes and what Robert Friedmann (author of "Anabaptist Theology") has called "implied theology." When these secondary quotes are considered, I have to say that I find it hard, very hard, to think that the typical 16th-century Anabaptist believed in forensic justification "a la Luther."<br />I cant find the quote right now, but (for example) Luther's idea of "simultaneously righteous and a sinner" was simply called a doctrine of devils by one of the early Hutterites.<br />Anyways, it is an interesting topic for me. My readings of Anabaptist materials (I am actually trying to learn to read German so I can read the still untranslated source materials--several volumes of them) has swung me stronger still towards ontological justification.<br />Maybe I am reading into them what I want to hear them say, but I hope I am honest enough to refrain from that. But time and time again I see Luther's name stuck right next to the Pope as a false teacher ... The Pope tried to get to heaven by spurious works, and Luther tried to get there by "believing in the finished work of Christ." Both of these models were wrong. For example, Marpeck writes (Expose of the Babylonian Whore), "But the mystery of the cross and of the narrow gate was not spoken about nor taught, just as it still is not taught in "evangelical" circles. ...It is easy to see that these "evangelical" preachers are the evildoers to whom Christ says, "Depart from me.""<br />So they agreed with the Magisterial Reformers??<br />MikePrimitive Christianityhttp://www.primitivechristianity.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-56705337621863680962010-02-06T11:45:53.111-08:002010-02-06T11:45:53.111-08:00Thanks. In case anyone else was interested, I foun...Thanks. In case anyone else was interested, I found this website with a Baptist Histroy CD with those two works you recommended, pus many more. I don't know if the other works are worth it, but it is $30 for the whole CD.<br /><br />http://baptistbookshelf.com/index.htmlBrad Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05890980972231485330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-7536855707575034652010-02-06T06:53:18.673-08:002010-02-06T06:53:18.673-08:00Thanks for the info. They will be next on my "...Thanks for the info. They will be next on my "to read" list.Brad Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05890980972231485330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-29497924132566844952010-02-03T15:17:42.635-08:002010-02-03T15:17:42.635-08:00Hi Brad,
John T. Christian's History of Bapti...Hi Brad,<br /><br />John T. Christian's History of Baptists and Thomas Armitage History of Baptists. Those are two very good ones.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-86967815556117957452010-02-03T15:00:03.276-08:002010-02-03T15:00:03.276-08:00If someone was looking for a good book on church/B...If someone was looking for a good book on church/Baptist history, what should he read? My knowledge is very shallow, considering I have only read A Fatihful Baptist Witness.Brad Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05890980972231485330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-9201040158889767342010-02-03T13:56:52.555-08:002010-02-03T13:56:52.555-08:00Pastor Brandenburger - Timothy George's book, ...Pastor Brandenburger - Timothy George's book, apparently, is just another expression of the "traditional account" of church history that was invented by Catholics, is perpetuated by Protestants, and is largely fact free.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-36994585323406143232010-02-03T13:31:33.448-08:002010-02-03T13:31:33.448-08:00Brothers Brandenburg, McGovern, and anyone else wh...Brothers Brandenburg, McGovern, and anyone else who cares,<br /><br />My comments in this thread reflect a cranky and ungracious spirit. Please forgive me for my lack of charity towards you. I have sent an email to Bro. B. containing my thoughts in greater detail. <br /><br />David. <br /><br />PS> I cannot guess what you mean by your last sentence there.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22695476332463520202010-02-02T16:23:48.793-08:002010-02-02T16:23:48.793-08:00D4,
Jesus did say to Peter, our brother, get thee...D4,<br /><br />Jesus did say to Peter, our brother, get thee behind me Satan. And it didn't take omniscience to know that. Peter was trying to stop Jesus from going to the cross. And what Terry is saying is far lesser, that saying men didn't believe in justification, who actually did, is persecution, which I see being still a play on words. Anabaptists, who are already dead, can't be persecuted, but they were persecuted by reformers, who slandered them, and the slander continues. I'm guessing that you aren't guessing.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-12959531326392330532010-02-02T16:04:46.931-08:002010-02-02T16:04:46.931-08:00The pharisees were not our brother's in Christ...The pharisees were not our brother's in Christ, and we are not omniscient. But you can contend in whatever vein you wish for our faith; I'll leave that between you and Phil and God, I guess. <br /><br />Peace, brother.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28629714457727633222010-02-02T14:14:57.098-08:002010-02-02T14:14:57.098-08:00D4,
My persecute remark was in regards to Johnso...D4, <br /><br />My persecute remark was in regards to Johnson trying to discredit Anabaptist. Even Jesus spoke of those who persecute us with their tongues (Matthew 5:11). It was a very accurate statement. Even though the Anabaptist he spoke of are in the grave, he is actively persecuting them with his tongue, by trying to discredit them.<br /><br />Why? <br />The fact is Johnson lifts up men like Luther and Calvin, and looks down upon Anabaptist. There is no way he can up lift Luther and Calvin and Anabaptist at the same time. He needs to discredit Anabaptist to justify his own beliefs and view of history. The testimony of Anabaptist is a thorn in his side as it is to all reformers. <br />Luther claimed Scripture alone, but that fact is he was Scripture + Augustine alone. I find Johnson’s position ironic and very hypocritical for him to say Anabaptist did not believe in justification by faith alone. Luther claimed that, but he believed grace was given through sacraments, just as the Catholics did. He thus added to faith. What Johnson is trying to accuse Anabaptist of, his hero is the one actually guilty! Luther derived his position based on the writings of Augustine, thus he was “Scripture + Augustine alone”.<br />Lets here from Luther himself<br />“To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)”<br />"It remains for us to speak of our two sacraments, instituted by Christ. Every Christian ought to have at least some brief, elementary instruction in them because without these no one can be a Christian ... First we shall take up Baptism through which we are first received into the Christian community. ... Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved"<br /><br />After reading this of you believe Luther believed in Justification by faith alone? <br /><br />As far the venom comment goes:<br />It was not venom, but truth. Was Jesus speaking venom when he called Herod a fox (Luke 13:32) or when he called the Pharisees hypocrites? Was John the Baptist speaking venom when he referred to the Pharisees as vipers? <br /><br />We are to earnestly contend for the faith. I was attempting to do that, not spew venom, or distort a history for one that is more convenient for my theological position.Terry McGovernhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07785714020219737129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-73199177364026316752010-02-02T09:22:11.694-08:002010-02-02T09:22:11.694-08:00Yes, persecution can be other than physical, no qu...Yes, persecution can be other than physical, no question. I just think it's silly to equate what well may be a mean spirited comment by a brother in Christ to attempts at persecution.d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-89651399499739097182010-02-02T09:07:39.097-08:002010-02-02T09:07:39.097-08:00*trying to persecute* was the exact language, d4. ...*trying to persecute* was the exact language, d4. I took it as a play on words---reformed persecuting anabaptists still. Is it persecution to accuse someone of denying justification by faith, who actually believes it? Persecution is not just physical; it can also be verbal. Yes or No, David?<br /><br />The "trail of blood" comment is venom as far as Johnson is concerned. And it isn't true. My assumption is that he knows that. He knows that not everyone who claims that Anabaptists believed in justification by faith are "trail of blood." He uses it as a pejorative to discredit them. This is a strategy sadly that I've found Johnson to use all the time when he is confronted with something. It doesn't help his credibility to do it, I don't think, but it is very fundamentalist of him.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-82080969626122182532010-02-02T09:06:17.345-08:002010-02-02T09:06:17.345-08:00Balthasar Hubmaier (a "Reformation age" ...Balthasar Hubmaier (a "Reformation age" Anabaptist theologian) wrote a short article outlining the entire Christian life, on 1524. It is called "Eighteen Dissertations concerning the entire Christian life and of what it consists."<br /><br />His first point: "Faith alone makes us pious before God."<br /><br />His second point distinguishes true believers from "nominal Christians." Thus stated: "This belief is recognition of the mercy of God, since He hath redeemed us by the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son, and this excludes all nominal Christians who have only an historical belief in God."<br /><br />In points 5 and 6 he goes against the Roman Catholic idea transubstantiation of the Eucharist (Lord's Supper or Communion). <br /><br />Point 12 he is for the disposal of Masses, votive offerings, masses for others. (I am assuming he is talking about Masses for the dead, which is still practiced by many third world Roman Catholic Countries).<br /><br />Point 14 - he speaks against purgatory.<br /><br />So, I agree with Pastor B. - the Anabaptist did believe in justification by faith alone, and opposed the council of Trent, and were most likely the recipients of persecution from both the RCC and Protestants.<br /><br />BTW, These and many other Baptist confessions can be read in William Lumpkin's "Baptist Confessions of Faith" Valley Forge: Judson Press. Revised edition - 1969.<br /><br />I do think the term "Anabaptist" is a misnomer because it seems to legitimize "infant baptism" which really is not baptism at all, at least Biblically. BUT then again, Baptists have never really had the luxury of choosing a name for themselves. I wouldn't split hairs over a brother who wants to be called Anabaptist, strictly on that alone. I think that doctrine and morals would be where the deciding factor in the area of fellowship. Anyway, my two cents, FWIW.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.com