Anabaptists- Part one (Because of length this is being divided into several parts) by Jim Curran

https://www.facebook.com/groups/baptistchurchhistory/permalink/1763707777157697/

Facebook

Jim Curran

Admin  · Yesterday at 11:09 AM  · Daily Baptist EncyclopediaAnabaptists- Part one (Because of length this is being divided into several parts)The name ‘ Anabaptist’? was originally a re-
proachful epithet applied to those Christians in
the time of the Reformation who, from rigid ad-
herence to the Scriptures as the infallible and all-
sufficient standard of faith and practice, and from
the evident incompatibility of infant baptism with
regenerate church membership, rejected infant bap-
tism and inaugurated churches of their own on the
basis of believers’ baptism. While reproached by
their enemies with rebaptizing those that had been
already baptized in the established churches, they
maintained that the baptism of believers, such as
was administered by themselves, was the only
Christian baptism, the baptism of infants being
unworthy of the name.

Anabaptists, The German and Swiss.—The
Anabaptist Reformation was nothing more than a
consistent carrying out of the principles at first
laid down by the Reformers, Luther and Zwingle,
who both proposed, at the outset, to make the Bible
the only standard of faith and practice. Many
men of great religious earnestness, filled with this
idea, could not bear to see the godly and the un-
godly living together in the church, the latter as
well as the former partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
The necessity of a separation of Christians from the
ungodly was, therefore, the most fundamental thing
with the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, as
it is with Baptists to-day. If only the regenerate
are to be members of this body, it follows, neces-
sarily, that those baptized in unconscious infancy,
or later in life without faith, are not truly baptized.
They understood the Scripture to make faith a pre-
requisite to baptism; and they found in Scripture
no precept nor example for infant baptism. They
rejected infant baptism as a matter of course and
baptized anew all that came to them. Hence the
name of reproach— Anabaptist.’ Luther was as
uncompromising as Baptists in making personal
faith prerequisite to valid baptism. He reproached
the Waldenses (Note- actually Bohemian Bretherensee note below)for baptizing infants, denying that such infants have faith, thus taking the name of the Lord in vain.(NOTE: I am relatively sure this quote came from "Uon Anbeten des Sacraments des heyligen leychnams Christi" This however was addressed to the Bohemian Brethren (Moravians) which Luther wrongly called Waldenses. There are major substantial differences between the Moravians and the ancient Waldenses. The Waldenses did not practice infant baptism as evidenced by quotes by Reinerius Saccho, Berenger, Bishop Gerard of Arras, Evervinus of Stanfield, Peter Abbot of Clugny, Bernard Abbot of Clairval, Alexander III, Cardinal Hosius and many others) Not baptism, Luther
held, but personal faith, justifies. If the infant
has not personal faith, parents lie when they say
for it “I believe.” But Luther maintained that
through the prayers of the church the infant does
have faith, and he defied his adversaries to prove
the contrary. This was more than the average man
could believe. Hence he would be likely to accept
the principle and to reject the application. Luther
attached great importance to baptism; Zwingle
very little. Hiibmaier and Grebel both asserted
that, in private conversation with them, Zwingle
had expressed himself against infant baptism. His
earlier writings show that for a time he doubted
the scripturalness of infant baptism, and preferred
to postpone baptism until the subject should be
able to profess his faith. We have indisputable
evidence that almost every other leader in the
Reformation, Melancthon, Gicolampadius, Capito,
etc., had a struggle over the question of baptism.
It seems equally certain that they were deterred
from rejecting infant baptism by the manifest con-
sequences of the Baptist position. It appeared to
them impossible that any movement should succeed
which should lose the support of the civil powers,
and should withdraw the true Christians from the
mass of the people. Endless divisions, the triumph
of the papists, and the entire overthrow of the
Reformation, seemed to them inevitable. Hence
their defense of infant baptism, and their zeal in
the suppression of the Anabaptists. Those that
rejected infant baptism believed that Zwingle
thought as they did, but held back from unworthy
motives. We may divide the Anabaptists into
three classes: (1) The fanatical Anabaptists. (2)
The Baptist Anabaptists. (3) The mystical Anabap-
tists. Great injustice has been done to many that
fall under the name Anabaptist by failing to make
this distinction. Was a certain party fanatical ?
The stigma is attached to all. Were a few mystics
Anabaptists? All classes are blamed for it(continued tomorrow)From the Baptist Encyclopedia by William Cathcart