Persecution Repentance

[MrJim]

Hey everyone

Just a question...

Has there ever been any kind of apology/repentance from the Reformed church (or Presbyterian) regarding the persecution of the anabaptists during the reformation? I'm posting similar questions on Lutheran and RCC forums.

It seems that if this has been done then it is forgiven instead of the past continuing to be dredged up and reexamined.

Thanks

 

[Tertiumquid]

Has there ever been any kind of apology/repentance from the Reformed church (or Presbyterian) regarding the persecution of the anabaptists during the reformation? I'm posting similar questions on Lutheran and RCC forums.It seems that if this has been done then it is forgiven instead of the past continuing to be dredged up and reexamined. Thanks

My studies of the Reformation have shown me that everyone was killing everyone (perhaps not to the same degree). The Catholics persecuted the Protestants, the Protestants went to war with the Catholics, Some anabaptists were radicals and took over entire cities, executing people, and then the protestants and catholics would join together and wipe out the anabaptists...and so on and so on.

This is to point out: I think you're appying a 21st century standard of tolerance to a very intollerable century. They had no problem killing each other for truth/politics/religion/or whatever.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[MrJim]

While there were radical elements amongst the anabaptists (particularly the Munsterites) those numbered amongst the mennonite/amish/brethren were not the militant.

There is a "Trail of Blood" thread in the B/A forum that is working over the persecutions of Christians in history. I'm just wondering if we just can get past it. Otherwise it's just another wedge amongst church brethren.

In as much as it lays with me I feel no anger or resentment to the followers of those that slayed the anabaptists. You know why? You weren't there and I wasn't there. And if necessary I do forgive wherever necessary regarding this issue. The underlying question is--if it was not thought to be wrong then, could it happen again?

 

[MrJim]

Hey, it looks like it's old news


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/148/story_14859_1.html

 

[StAnselm]

Well, I don't really feel guilty for it, and nor should I. We don't bear the responsibility for our ancestors' guilt, do we? The Presbyterian Church of Australia (to which I belong) did not, of course, persecute any anabaptists.

You see, if you're going to distance yourselves fromt he Munsterites, why can't modern-day Reformed folk distance themselves from these 16th- and 17th- century "persecutors"???

 

[Jon_]

I'm sorry.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I'm sorry.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Well, that wraps it up!

Seriously, why should these other groups see the need for people to apologize for the sins of their ancestors? If they see us as enemies, than biblically, they are required to pray for us and to forgive us. If they can't do that it becomes their problem. This seems to be a day when everyone is demanding apologies, when all many of them wish to do is find some sort of admission of personal guilt within the apology.

Apologies are meaningless unless a person has a need to confess their sins to one whom they sinned against. I don't think Jon or anyone else here has ever killed an anabaptist... or have we???

 

[Tertiumquid]

While there were radical elements amongst the anabaptists (particularly the Munsterites) those numbered amongst the mennonite/amish/brethren were not the militant.

The same could be said of various protestant congregations and many 16th century Roman Catholics as well.

There is a "Trail of Blood" thread in the B/A forum that is working over the persecutions of Christians in history. I'm just wondering if we just can get past it. Otherwise it's just another wedge amongst church brethren.

I don't go on all the forums here, and i'm not sure what "B/A" is. If you could link the thread i will look at it.

In as much as it lays with me I feel no anger or resentment to the followers of those that slayed the anabaptists. You know why? You weren't there and I wasn't there. And if necessary I do forgive wherever necessary regarding this issue. The underlying question is--if it was not thought to be wrong then, could it happen again?

I never said religious groups killing each other was acceptable. My point is that each generation is blinded by their own cultural conformity. The 16th century folks inherited a cultural bias that said it was ok to kill in the name of religion. Now, what will the 25th century say about us? What are the elements of cultural conformity in the 21st century?

Indeed its easy to look back and point out sin. It's much more difficult to see our own cultural sin.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

Seriously, why should these other groups see the need for people to apologize for the sins of their ancestors? If they see us as enemies, than biblically, they are required to pray for us and to forgive us. If they can't do that it becomes their problem. This seems to be a day when everyone is demanding apologies, when all many of them wish to do is find some sort of admission of personal guilt within the apology. Apologies are meaningless unless a person has a need to confess their sins to one whom they sinned against. I don't think Jon or anyone else here has ever killed an anabaptist... or have we???

Interestingly, The Lutheran churches back in the 80's (if I recall) apologized for any of their own people who took part in the Nazi holocaust, and condemned the form of anti-semetism that Luther perpetuated (which was different than modern day anti-semetism).

I found these apologies helpful because they clealry define the collective stance of the Lutheran churches against anti-semetism, and they also had a chance to point out they do not consider Luther an infallible authority.

The difference between this and 16th century intolerance, is that the holocaust is still very contemporary. It's much harder to apologize for something from 500 years ago that was a defining characteristic of a entire culture.

James Swan

 

[rmwilliamsll]

yes
see:
monument to servetus
http://www.servetus.org/en/michael-servetus/image-gallery/iconography/ico4.htm

On the 27 October, 1553, died at the stake in Champel, Michael Servetus of Villeneuve of Aragon, born on the 29 of September, 1511...Duteous and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience according to the true principles of his Reformation and the Gospel, we have erected this expiratory monument. Oct. 27, 1903”

 

[Jon_]

I don't think Jon or anyone else here has ever killed an anabaptist... or have we???

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Whilst none of us are personally responsible, I think it is still good to apologise. His Holiness Pope John Paul the Great (may he rest in peace) apologised during his Pontificate for a number of the atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism in the past. I think that this is always a good thing to do, and many people rightly do it.

It won't change the past, but it could change the present and the future.

Rob

 

[Jon_]

Whilst none of us are personally responsible, I think it is still good to apologise. His Holiness Pope John Paul the Great (may he rest in peace) apologised during his Pontificate for a number of the atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism in the past. I think that this is always a good thing to do, and many people rightly do it.

It won't change the past, but it could change the present and the future.

Rob

I think the dynamic is much different for the Catholic church. The Roman institution is regarded as eternal and the pontiff as the representative of Christianity in general. We are talking about rogue elements of the Protestant faith committing these crimes. Their actions were neither a reflection of Christianity in general, nor were they carried out in the name of a particular institution.

Believe me, if someone today is offended by what happened hundreds of years ago, apologizing for it will not change things. They have no reason or right to be upset about the past. Demanding repentance or reparations generations after the fact is a selfish, ambitious thing to do. You see a lot of these elements among groups such as the NAACP or the Rainbow Coalition--people demanding an official apology from the US and even financial restitution for slavery.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[MrJim]

Thanks for your responses-I'm not looking for anyone to lay guilt on-just a base to work off to convince others to "let it go".

It is our duty to forgive and go on - even if no apology was given - but as noted it does help.

Sure glad I wasn't living in the 16th century. Funny thing, when I was in a reformed baptist church we were having a conversation about where we'd "fit in" back then and I suggested that since being "baptist" we'd probably be running from the authorities-calvinist or not-and hiding in the hedges with the anabaptists. Well, that didn't go over too well, but he really didn't have any other suggestions.

Thanks again.

 

[StAnselm]

What does "expiratory monument" mean? I hope they don't mean "expiatory"...

 

[5solas]

Eze 18:14 (ESV) "Now suppose this man fathers a son who sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise:
Eze 18:15 (ESV) he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife,
Eze 18:16 (ESV) does not oppress anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment,
Eze 18:17 (ESV) withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no interest or profit, obeys my rules, and walks in my statutes; he shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live.
Eze 18:18 (ESV) As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
Eze 18:19 (ESV) "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.


I am not responsible for the sins of my ancestors and I can not repent for them - I can only hope that I will not commit the same sins (btw I am a Reformed Baptist [London 1689 confession] and I fell very fine here )

 

[MrJim]

Eze 18:14 (ESV)


I am not responsible for the sins of my ancestors and I can not repent for them - I can only hope that I will not commit the same sins (btw I am a Reformed Baptist [London 1689 confession] and I fell very fine here )

Glad to hear it !

I would think the church has matured a bit since then and (by and large) has gotten past slaying others over doctrinal differences (though some would say it's not so much matured as it's just gotten lazy and tolerant ).

Can you even think of a case where something like that would ever happen again? It seems so...medieval .

I suspect that in looking back in history we will find we're guilty of a lot of things now that our descendants are just going to shake their head and say "What were they thinking back then?"

I'm not a Calvinist anymore, but I sure don't think Calvinists are heretics (I just sent BBAS a sizeable number of Reformed books-Warfield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Baxter and others)-if I thought they were evil I'd have burned them.

Thanks!

 

[HiredGoon]

I was reading Martin Luther's "Concerning Rebaptism" today and came across this quote regarding Anabaptists:

"Still, it is not right, and I truly grieve, that these miserable folk should be so lamentably murdered, burned, and tormented to death. We should allow everyone to believe what he wills. If his faith be false, he will be sufficiently punished in eternal hell-fire. Why then should we martyr these people also in this world, if their error be in faith alone and they are not guilty of rebellion or opposition to the government? Dear God, how quickly a person can become confused and fall into the trap of the devil! By the Scriptures and the Word of God, we ought to guard against and withstand him. By fire we accomplish little."

 

[StAnselm]

Can you even think of a case where something like that would ever happen again? It seems so...medieval .

"'Why - damn it - it's medieval,' I exclaimed; for I still had all the chronological snobbery of my period and used the names of earlier periods as terms of abuse."

(C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy)

 

[MrJim]

I was reading Martin Luther's "Concerning Rebaptism" today and came across this quote regarding Anabaptists:

I wonder which came first-was he first tolerant or later tolerant:




[size=+1]1. Luther[/size]

• [size=-1]There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman].[/size] [size=-1](Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)[/size]
  
  [size=-1]That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.[/size]
  
  [size=-1](Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)[/size]
  
  Anyhow, sounds kinda harsh. And these Christian leaders spoke at each other in such ways! In my "Complete Writings of Menno Simons" the translator sort of apologizes for the way Bro. Menno verbally disembowels some of the people he writes to (Gellius Faber comes to mind). Truly glad people don't talk this way today, eh?
  
  Let me know if those quotes are not good-want to make sure my sources are accurate. What year was "Concerning Rebaptism"?
  
  Thanks!

[size=-1][/size]