MennoNet.com

Seventeenth-century Baptists rejected infant baptism and consequently suffered terrible persecution under the established church. John Smyth, the founder of the general Baptist movement, was not shy about his criticism when he published Character of the Beast (1609), in which he argued that infant baptism was Satan’s way of keeping his hands on the Church of England, making it into a “worldly” church. He called members of the established church “harlots” in that they shared with Rome the “mark of the beast” of infant baptism.

A Handbook of Theology (Theology for the People of God) (p. 451). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Did the Mennonites, to which Smyth later became a member subscribe to this view? It would explain why they died by the thousands resisting infant baptism when they knew it was not biblical in the least. It was supposedly a means of census-taking for the beasts of both Protestant and Catholic countries.

1689dave wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:26 pm Seventeenth-century Baptists rejected infant baptism and consequently suffered terrible persecution under the established church. John Smyth, the founder of the general Baptist movement, was not shy about his criticism when he published Character of the Beast (1609), in which he argued that infant baptism was Satan’s way of keeping his hands on the Church of England, making it into a “worldly” church. He called members of the established church “harlots” in that they shared with Rome the “mark of the beast” of infant baptism.

A Handbook of Theology (Theology for the People of God) (p. 451). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Did the Mennonites, to which Smyth later became a member subscribe to this view? It would explain why they died by the thousands resisting infant baptism when they knew it was not biblical in the least. It was supposedly a means of census-taking for the beasts of both Protestant and Catholic countries.

They (the Anabaptists, a name which was a precursor to the more specific groups Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite, etc.) did reject infant baptism in the early 1500s resulting in their suffering at the hands of Catholic and Protestant rulers. I am not sure if they described it as the Mark of the Beast, a little research would answer that question, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pretty strong invective about it.

mike wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:29 pm I am not sure if they described it as the Mark of the Beast, a little research would answer that question, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pretty strong invective about it.

I only spent a little time on it, but I could not quickly find anyone who called it the mark of the beast. And it doesn't seem to fit the description in the Bible.

But yes, they all had strong invective about it. After all, many were risking their lives over this issue.

Anabaptists predate Baptists by about a century. But in one of their confessions they do refer to infant baptism as the chiefest and highest abomination of the pope.

Generally speaking, Anabaptists and English Baptists had precious little to do with one another.

Early Anabaptists didn't seem to make reference to the "mark of the beast" in quite the same way as modern dispensationalists. The closest I can find is a mention in Jörg Maler's Kunstbuch, in a piece by Leinhart Schienherr (p. 714) that compares the golden calves of 1 Kings 12 and the beasts of Rev. 13 in poetic form (the rhymes have been lost in translation).

And to that beast the power was giv'n
to fill that image with the spirit
so that it had the pow'r to speak.
And it decreed that everyone
who did not worship the image
immediately be put to death.
Moreover, to all --
the small, the great, the poor, the rich,
the free, the slave -- a sign
was giv'n on hand and forehead.
These were accepted by the beast
and were allowed to buy and sell
and practice usury and deceit,
provided they belong to him.

Maler's footnote: It is said that the image of the beast is Luther's teaching and ceremonies, and that whoever does not worship them, that is, hold them for the truth, is in danger for his life, as we can plainly see. The signs are Luther's sacraments.

Jorg Maler's Kunstbuch? The comment really makes sense. Let me know if this is the right book and I'll look for a copy, especially a searchable version.

I have a question. Did the early and the Baptist as well as the reformers have access to earliest Church writings of the fathers of the faith? Theologians, and those defending apostolic teaching? I was wondering if the average Christian during the time of the Reformation had access to these writings that shed light on not only the mark of the beast but on infant baptism in the east as well as the western part of Christianity in every country where the apostles took the gospel? I know we have access to these writings today of course I was just wondering if the earliest and a Baptist and reformers had the same access that we do to where they could see what was said prior to Constantine?

Valerie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:11 am I have a question. Did the early and the Baptist as well as the reformers have access to earliest Church writings of the fathers of the faith? Theologians, and those defending apostolic teaching? I was wondering if the average Christian during the time of the Reformation had access to these writings that shed light on not only the mark of the beast but on infant baptism in the east as well as the western part of Christianity in every country where the apostles took the gospel? I know we have access to these writings today of course I was just wondering if the earliest and a Baptist and reformers had the same access that we do to where they could see what was said prior to Constantine?

I would think Menno Simons had those and still rejected it. Besides, the earliest records are unclear on infant baptism and the later stuff that might endorse it also brought a lot of other bizarre teachings that the Orthodox or Catholics reject too.

That may be, but at least it would convey that it was not made up later to baptize infants that the early writers at least some of them believed in it and Origen said the Apostles taught it. Just saying that tells us it wasn't the Pope's idea nor from what I read about the mark of the beast it was nothing even close to what this OPs conveying so i was wondering if this idea here was from Scripture alone or an "idea" not sure how this connection could possibly have been made.

Valerie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:45 am That may be, but at least it would convey that it was not made up later to baptize infants that the early writers at least some of them believed in it and Origen said the Apostles taught it. Just saying that tells us it wasn't the Pope's idea nor from what I read about the mark of the beast it was nothing even close to what this OPs conveying so i was wondering if this idea here was from Scripture alone or an "idea" not sure how this connection could possibly have been made.

It’s a game of telephone, the things the apostles taught keep popping up later and later but were never referenced earlier or the argument is that the actual referenced stuff wasn’t about what it seems to say.
There certainly was anti icon talk from early church fathers and later church fathers claim it was only about pagan icons. Tertulian for example spends time justifying head coverings on virgins with arguments about male virgins and coverings. He clearly doesn’t believe men should cover at all but that appealing to rationalism by that argument would strongly suggest that he would have explained why the “Christian” icons were different then the pagan icons rather then condemn icons.
Later when the writings justifying icons also claimed the apostles taught it yet there isn’t any proof of that in writing prior. Making icons doesn’t mean they served a special purpose anymore then us today taking a photo of a spouse.