The Anabaptists: Handout Church History with John Gerstner
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Dr. Gerstner examines the twists and turns of church history, addressing major theological developments along the way. He demonstrates how God has been at work in each stage of church history and explains that Christians today can be confident that God continues to work in the church for His glory.
This is the 26th in a series of messages by Dr. Gerstner on church history. See other videos in the series: • Handout Church History...
This message was originally published by Ligonier Ministries: www.ligonier.org/
No where in Scripture is infant baptism promoted, nor does it make any sense. Believer's baptism is all we see and what makes logical sense. But love must prevail to those who are blinded in this area. God help us.
Show me the explicit command to refuse children the covenant sign of baptism. Show me the verse that explicitly states that the church in the OT is disconnected from the church in the NT.
Was there only believers circumcision in the Ot?
I always hate when folks who are believers attack other believers in their CZcams comments.
Nevertheless, Dr. Gerstner’s comments fall so far short of describing the core of Anabaptist thought that I must make the following comments:
1. There are four Anabaptist distinctives that differentiate them from the other reformation movements: Baptism of adults upon profession of faith (and the true church as a voluntary association of those baptized believers), the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (separation of the true church from the world, and all worldly systems such as politics and civil governance), the prohibition of the swearing oaths, and Biblical non-resistance of evil (including returning good for evil, and non-participation in military activities).
2. Dr. Gerstner ignores three of these four distinctives, and incorrectly describes Anabaptist thought on the one distinctive upon which he focuses.
3. Generally the Anabaptists were more interested in obedience to Scripture than in attacking those they saw as being in error. This is exactly the opposite of the approach of most Reformed theologians, who usually seem to be more interested in attacking the “heretics” (and proving themselves as correct/proving the “heretics” wrong) than they are about illuminating truth. In this video, Dr. Gerstner clearly exemplifies this approach.
4. The Anabaptists focused upon Biblical teachings they saw as needing illumination and application, followed by obedience to those teachings. This included the administering of baptism upon conscious, decisive profession of faith accompanied by evidence of a changed life AKA repentance. For a more complete understanding of this prioritization, please see the Schleitheim Confession of Faith (from 24 February 1527), and the Dortrecht Confession of Faith (from 21 April 1632).
5. For a concise statement of Anabaptist beliefs from someone who actually knows that of which he speaks, please search online for “Anabaptist distinctives Lynn Martin” and read his posts there.
FYI, my family line stems from all three of the major branches of the Anabaptist “tree,” meaning from Amish, Mennonite and Hutterite branches, dating from the 16th century. So I may actually understand a bit about what Anabaptists believe…….
Seems like anababaptist had it mostly right
I agree with the Ante-Nicene Fathers who were taught by the Apostles, Reformed theology followers the same methodology that started the Roman Catholic Church. They followed the same arrogants, the Apostle Paul warned of in, Romans 11:20-22 ESV
[20] That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. [22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
No solid historians believe in baptist succession
Good study!
He does not understand Anabaptists and and grossly misrepresents us. Read the Sermon on the Mount and see what the church should look like. As pure as humanly possible.
Matthew 28:18-20 gives the order: (1) teach (2) baptize (3) teach to observe ALL THINGS.
I was thinking this. He admits more than most thought, still.
I enjoyed it until he started to use Augustine to justify his position of why Anabaptists are wrong, in the idea of a pure Church.
We don't need a pure church, but the anabaptist idea of a gravely erroneous church is hilarious
I dislike having to say that Dr. Gerstner consistently misunderstood and misrepresented certain of the theological points with which he disagreed. He was also flatly incorrect about several of the assumptions and arguments undergirding some of his positions. The title of one of his writings aptly describes the endeavor at which he sometimes best excelled, that is: “ Wrongly dividing the Word of Truth”…
I'm not sure which of the points Dr. Gerstner made in this clip that you are referring to, but I didn't see any error in his assessment of the Anabaptist theology of believer's baptism. Though they were called "re-baptizers" they did not consider their baptism to be a re-baptism as they did not consider their original (infant) baptism to be a valid observation, and so they considered themselves baptized for the first time when they were baptized in their profession of faith.
No rebaptisms in scripture