Hello everyone! I'm thinking that I'm an Anabaptist.

[Treverend]

It started with my journey to Christian anarchism. Yes I'm an anarchist and the Anabaptist's seem to believe what I know about God. I do have a few questions though.

1. What is the exact difference of the magisterial reformation compared to the radical reformation?

2. Are Anabaptist's technically part of the Protestant reformation? Are they Protestants?

3. Some say that the Anabaptist's was a third altogether separate part of the reformation and that they may have predated the Protestant reformation. Is this true?

 

[drstevej]

1. The magisterial reformation did not separate church and state. The radical reformation / Anabaptist said that a Christian could/should not be a magistrate. In the Magisterial Reformation there was a single state church.

2. Historians see the radical reformation as distinct from the magisterial reformers. Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc) were harsh critics of Anabaptists and radicals. The Martyr's Mirror gives multiple accounts of Anabaptist matryrs.

3. There were radicals prior to the reformation and throughout the history of the church but the Radical Reformation and especially Anabaptists were a reaction against both Catholicism and Protestantism.

A good treatment is The Anabaptist Story, by William Estep. Estep was my dissertation external reader.

 

[WayneinMaine]

It started with my journey to Christian anarchism. Yes I'm an anarchist and the Anabaptist's seem to believe what I know about God. I do have a few questions though.

1. What is the exact difference of the magisterial reformation compared to the radical reformation?

2. Are Anabaptist's technically part of the Protestant reformation? Are they Protestants?

3. Some say that the Anabaptist's was a third altogether separate part of the reformation and that they may have predated the Protestant reformation. Is this true?

The "exact" difference would be hard to pinpoint. The Anabaptists were restorationists rather than reformers. They also believed in what we would call separation of church and state - that one's religion was the decision of a mature individual, not the choice of one's parents of one's King or council.

I would not consider Anabaptists, per-se, Protestants. But many of the groups descended from the Anabaptists have been very heavily influenced by every strain of Protestantism resulting in some cases in churches that have an ethnic Anabaptist identity with Protestant beliefs.

I think some of the ideals behind Anabaptism predate the 16th century Anabaptists, but there is no organic link to older movements.

 

[Unix]

I voted "Other" in the poll what Bible version people (Anabaptists) use.
I prioritize my Bibles approximately like this:

1. the 1971 2nd Edition Revised Standard Version. I have all imaginable tools for it, especially for the New Testament and some of the Old Testament books, one of the tools can be used together with the Revised English Bible and Good News Translation - ask if You want to know what there is! I also have the predecessors of it, the 1952 OT/1946 NT (as printed matter, not available in any Bible Study softwares), the 1935 Moffatt (as printed matter) and 1901 American Standard Version (in Logos). I have both a leather bound copy of the RSV as well as a hardcover Study Bible (Oxford Annotated, from 1973). Haven't found a New-Testament-only copy of the 2nd Edition despite of thorough searches. I don't use the RSV Apocrypha nor do I have it as printed matter. The REB is less word-for-word than the RSV, so at a varying frequency the RSV is better for some of the research. See: The NRSV lacks features that the RSV (1971 2nd Edition Revised Standard Version) has ... for more about it. See also the thread: Anyone here a fan of the RSV?.
2. Revised English Bible. I have both a New Testament, and an Apocrypha-only. I'm also going to order the 66-book Bible whenever I get it cheap from the UK, there are a LOT of whole Bibles (with the Apocrypha) real cheap used. I avoid buying more bulky copies of the Bibles I use the most. Often I prioritise the REB higher than the RSV, it depends on where in the Bible. This version is not found free online. A translation sample: the Pauline letters, also very good for 1-2 Mc, 4 Ezra and parts of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). See: OT exegetical versions compared to 1995 Contemporary English Version.
3. 1975 Bible In Order. It's practically the same as the 1966 Jerusalem Bible Reader's Edition. The difference I've seen is that it has ' instead of ", and that the footnotes differ a little. It's a bit bulky and not available in Bible Study software. I have a nice 1976 New Testament concordance for it, (You can see from my ChristianForums profile what the title of it is. The concordance is English and Greek. The concordance cites the 1968 Jerusalem Bible text but is also intended for other current versions such as the 2nd Edition 1970 New English Bible - but You have to search the internet to find out which all Bible versions it handles.) I use this version to compare for stylistic reasons for example poetry. I also have the 1968 Jerusalem Bible text on the computers as html files. A translation sample: Ps 4.
4. New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS, not at all the same as NET), covers only the Old Testament, including Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. I usually read this more than the Bible In Order. Translated only from the Göttingen Edition. I have it both as hard cover as well as in Accordance. I usually prioritise this higher than the Bible In Order/Jerusalem Bible!
5. 2012 Updated Bible Version 2.16 (UPDV) and Lk 1-2 from the 2.15 Edition. I have it both as paperback which I've covered with adhesive plastic, as well as in Logos. It's free in Logos, but You have to go to the home page of the translation: UPDV Updated Bible Version - Home Page and compile it as a personal book in Logos. The paperback Edition of this version can usually be found cheap.
6. 2008 The Comprehensive New Testament as hardcover, and the 2011 Comprehensive Bible in Accordance. With this one You can quickly determine where there are differences between versions regarding what manuscript family they translate from.
7. 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition (NT is 6th Edition) UK-English 66-book Bible. (There is an even newer Edition of parts of the Gospel of John, search for: Good News Gospel of John portion revised on Amazon .co.uk or .com)
8. The Greek version Göttingen Edition Septuagint (LXX) bought used for Logos. Old Testament including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. This is by far the very best Edition, it's many volumes and must have been a lot of work. It cost me $290 used.
9. The forthcoming Nestle-Aland 29th Edition Greek New Testament.

Additionally, I have the 1989 NRSV New Testament; the 2010 New American Bible Revised Edition containing the New Testament revised in 1986 and a predecessor of it - the Confraternity Version (1964 Old Testament missing parts of the Old Testament but those books are not among the important ones, and separately a 1941 New Testament) - as well as the 1970 New American Bible 2 volume folio New Testament; the earlier Editions of the Good News Translation (but neither of the 1966 Editions).

I have two parallel ones with 8 versions/Editions each as printed matter, for being able to study "off the grid" (good for not getting stuck in front of the computer). One New Testament, one Old Testament Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.

The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals volume (it's in good shape, recently bought from hpb-ohio on eBay ) contains:

• the early-20th century Greek Edition (Rahlfs)
• 1763-4 Douay-Rheims
• 1611 KJV
• 1989 NRSV. I use this for parts of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).
• 1970 New American Bible
• 1985 New Jerusalem Bible
• 1992 2nd Edition Good News Translation
• 1955 Ronald Knox

The New Testament volume, which I bought in 2011, contains:

• 1769 KJV
• 1971 Living Bible
• 1971 3rd Edition Good News Translation
• 1973 NIV
• 1972 J. B. Phillips
• 1971 2nd Edition RSV
• 1966/1968 Jerusalem Bible Reader's Edition
• 1970 2nd Edition New English Bible, the predecessor of the Revised English Bible, one of my New Testament tools references this version

Additionally I could mention that I have some cheap tools which I use for grasping what the English in many of these Bibles means, such as dictionaries, and for being able to write correctly. These tools were really cheap at powells.com (and one of them from elsewhere, a 1987 Collins Cobuild dictionary).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

... ... Protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc) were harsh critics of Anabaptists and radicals. The Martyr's Mirror gives multiple accounts of Anabaptist matryrs.
3. There were radicals prior to the reformation and throughout the history of the church but the Radical Reformation and especially Anabaptists were a reaction against both Catholicism and Protestantism.

+++ 'harsh critics' is being very polite I think. In many countries today Anabaptists and any other EKKLESIA are frequently put to death by political and religious authorities. All through history this has been so with a few times of respite. +++

The "exact" difference would be hard to pinpoint. The Anabaptists were restorationists rather than reformers. They also believed in what we would call separation of church and state - that one's religion was the decision of a mature individual, not the choice of one's parents of one's King or council.
I would not consider Anabaptists, per-se, Protestants. But many of the groups descended from the Anabaptists have been very heavily influenced by every strain of Protestantism resulting in some cases in churches that have an ethnic Anabaptist identity with Protestant beliefs.
I think some of the ideals behind Anabaptism predate the 16th century Anabaptists, but there is no organic link to older movements.

... ... ...
Additionally I could mention that I have some cheap tools which I use for grasping what the English in many of these Bibles means,... ...

+++ early in my life, Yhwh for His Own Purpose and Plan and by His Own Sheer Grace in Jesus Christ, taught me the truth from a simple RSV(that's all I had, and all I need. actually more than I need as Jesus reaches people who cannot read easier than He reaches people who can read)
Just as it is written "if you love ABBA completely/totally/fully/with your whole heart, then (and only then) ABBA Himself will teach you the truth about all things." Jesus. +++

It started with my journey to Christian anarchism. Yes I'm an anarchist and the Anabaptist's seem to believe what I know about God. I do have a few questions though.

+++ 'Anabaptist's seem to believe what I know about God.' -- see comment below. +++

1. What is the exact difference of the magisterial reformation compared to the radical reformation?

+++ It doesn't matter as far as I can tell. No one I know is person knows about, and no one I've met in my entire life talks about either one, and when it or similar topic(s) are brought up in chat rooms or forums it's been, well, ... ... (I just can't bring myself to say it without knowing you. For you it may have a significance I have no idea about.)+++

2. Are Anabaptist's technically part of the Protestant reformation? Are they Protestants?

+++ "technically" some say yes, some say no, I'd reckon. see comment below. +++

3. Some say that the Anabaptist's was a third altogether separate part of the reformation and that they may have predated the Protestant reformation. Is this true?

+++
re - Anabaptist's seem to believe what I know about God.
and - 'part of reformation' and 'are they Protestants?'
and - 'predated the Protestant reformation'
and - other posts about history/'lineage'? of Anabaptists.

I believe like Wayne posted that Anabaptists predate the 16th century.
I don't know (nor worry about, or even think about, or try to find other than resting with God in prayer) about an organic link so to speak.
I think from the first century on their were believer's whom the Anabaptists would
have had perfect fellowship as to being in right standing with God, living as GOD says to ALL THE TIME(i.e. always aware of and obeying HIM actively present) and believing simply Scripture - that Scripture is true, God's Word, that God watches over His Word to Protect and Perform it(NOT necessarily the way any human group says He does, and SPECIFICALLY NOT the way the counterfeit groups say He does),
and that God dwells with men (YES, ON EARTH)(SPIRIT) literally caring and helping and guiding and strengthening EKKLESIA (for the joy and purpose of SALVATION of all who call upon GOD) --- EKKLESIA being set apart from satan, from the world, from religion, from commerce of the world, from greed, from self, from sin and the consequences of sin. EKKLESIA living in union with Yhwh in Y'shua, vibrantly, steadily, daily, and others around them both knowing they are believers by the love(obedience, different from religion and the world) that can be seen amongst them AND others around them saying "they have been with God". (testimonies from Scripture of true believers)...

so, the good is that (some if not all) Anabaptists were and are EKKLESIA (God's set apart ones, God's people) so
if you know the truth about God, then yes, that is what the Anabaptists believe and have believed also. (in direct contrast to many other groups).
the Anabaptists also rejected what was false, and I don't know or think about whether they used to be 'in' some other group at first and reformed or came out of her,
as all EKKLESIA have been at one time in error, as it is written in Scripture,
and many if not all have been in some group that was not alive in Christ, or in no group at all, not alive in Christ(the world/ society everywhere),
but
no matter what a persons history or upbringing or status or wealth,
God does not respect(give any honor to) their outward appearance or show.
No matter what a persons' country, et al,

WHOEVER CALLS ON YHWH FINDS HIM.

This is HIS PROMISE, YHWH's DECREE and YHWH's PLAN and YHWH's PURPOSE always,
just as it is written in YHWH's WORD (Scripture).