MennoNet.com

The defense I have read in a few history books written by Mennonites that Munsterites were not Anabaptists is kind of sad sounding.

Too often there seems to be a picture painted of purity of today that can be quite encouraging but yet we come and it doesn't exist the way it was written... Makes me doubt more and more about that written history and the building up of people. I really think what David Bercot has to say about What True Greatness Looks Like is very much worth looking into.

We don't need a term by which to identify the right church like we need to just be that church. You will know them by their fruit.

And one thing I am certain of and believe that the original so called Anabaptist's stood for was that: Biological ancestry never automatically equaled spiritual ancestry.

I think the question is irrelevant... I'm not trying to be offensive, but the few people that know anything about Anabaptists always bring them up. Its similar in many ways to you and I saying that the Catholic church is bad based on how many Catholics persecuted fellow believers. Every religion has some bad apples and to say it never happens is deceptive.

More modern times there was the so called Amish guy who cut beards, now the Amish came out saying he wasn't Amish, but what defines Amish?

Do I consider the Muensterites Anabaptists? in a sense, they both did adult baptism. So yes...
Do I consider the Mennonites Anabaptists? Well they do adult baptism...

Hats Off wrote:Then what is the point of reading what the early Anabaptists wrote? Now we are creating more work for ourselves. We need to study the original writings plus everything that has been written since? I am not suggesting to accept everything without question but neither do I feel we need to start from scratch every generation.

There is a sense where if each generation did start a little closer from scratch as you say that we might actually be better off. While I am thankful for my heritage, unless I actually make the good parts of it my own it really does me little eternal good.

Ancestry is actually common to ALL man. Adam is that ancestry.

We are common in Christ when born again being part of His body belonging to His kingdom.

Is this closer to the original Anabaptists thinking?

Hats Off wrote:Then what is the point of reading what the early Anabaptists wrote? Now we are creating more work for ourselves. We need to study the original writings plus everything that has been written since? I am not suggesting to accept everything without question but neither do I feel we need to start from scratch every generation.

I would read them more for inspiration than for direction. I think they were a good example of following Christ where He led them. But I remember a brother telling me that our churches haven't nearly emulated the Anabaptists yet, insinuating that we should be putting into practice everything that they did. I don't agree with that. God calls every generation to follow Him. There were things the Anabaptists did and believed that I don't think we should emulate. But we can always learn from sacrificial fervor and being willing to follow Christ even to death, if need be.

And to get back to the original question, the Munsterites may technically have been Anabaptist, but they (or many of them) weren't Christians, according to their actions. Some were deceived, and we'll leave them in God's hands. Melchior Hoffman was probably honestly deceived and would not have been happy where the Munsterites took his teachings. God will judge righteously in such cases. But I'm not willing to give men like Jan Van Leiden the same benefit of the doubt.

If they were anabaptist, I would consider them to have been an aberration, as I would also consider Claus Epp & his followers, from my own people, the 'Russian Mennonites". (For that matter, there are some current aberrations as well - groups who call themselves 'Mennonite', but are not at all, when central doctrines are taken into consideration, basically just the attitude taken toward the Scriptures.)

We must see here that the developement in north-west Germany was belated. And when the reform movement against the Catholic Church finally began, theologians tended to blend Reformed and Anabaptist ideas they had found in earlier books. A lot of the Munsterite ideas are, in hindsight, more Reformed than Anabaptist.
The use of the sword and the new government seem to us completely un-Anabaptist. But the idea of a new kingdom of god on earth is virulent today, too - and it logically leads to the idea of a new theocratic government which may lead to the use of the sword. Otherwise, no Anabaptist would have supported the Peasant's War!
Of course Menno thereafter draw a clear line and the bunch of Anabaptists - including the disappointed revolutionaries - followed him. Nobody states that Munsterites were Mennonites.

Peter:

In my travels, I had occasion to visit the Munster (Westphellia) Stadtmuseium. I saw a rather curious book displayed. authored by one Durrenmatt, called "The Anabaptist" (Die Wiedertaufer). Cover illustration is some spirits dancing around the crucified Christ. I don't read German, much more than to get myself something to eat, so what is up with this?

J.M.

title: From religious drama to political comedy: Friedrich Dürrenmatt 'The Anabaptists' and 'It's written'
Publication year: 1978
Publisher: Frankfurt am Main [etc.]: Verlag Peter Lang GmbH
I had never heard of Dürrenmatt but found this information by searching Durrenmatt - Der Wiedertaufer

Friedrich Dürrenmatt 'Die Wiedertäufer' und 'Es steht geschrieben'