Do Reformed Anabaptists exist?

[JohnH]

I’m just genuinely surprised that Reformed thinking (from a soteriological perspective) and Anabaptist or Pietistic living (from a practical perspective) has never existed.

Someone in an Anabaptist church who thinks that once Jesus has saved them and they are following Jesus who then thinks that no matter how much they choose to sin, they could never ever possibly be lost again, would be viewed as a very confused person in need of spiritual help and guidance. (Eternal Security or Perserverance of the Saints)

Someone in an Anabaptist church who thinks God creates some people who will never, ever be able to accept Jesus' gift and follow Jesus would also be viewed as a quite demented person. (Double Predestination)

Anabaptists also don't believe in infant baptism, rather obviously. Calvinists generally do. Anabaptists don't believe that one's family is automatically elect; Calvinists generally do and hence why they feel comfortable practicing infant baptism as some kind of "covenant symbol" to replace circumcision.

It’s very, very, very rare in the history of the Church for some well meaning brother or sister to come by with a new idea. So I have a deep, abiding and hopefully healthy suspicion that I would be numbered among the first folk to try to puzzle out how these two big beautiful branches of the Reformation might intersect.

Most Anabaptists would consider Calvinism an ugly heresy polluting the church, not a "beautiful branch". It is at complete odds with the entire basis of Anabaptism.

I can’t imagine what a difficult choice some Anabaptist brothers would have laid before them, because Anabaptist practices seem to be quite a seven day a week, day in day out sort of thing (and I write this to the glory of God, I think it’s a tremendously positive thing).

Is there really no community anywhere on the planet where the TULIP and BASIN coexist?

There was in Zurich for about 2 years from 1525-1527, I guess?

The notion that a well meaning Anabaptist brother might come to privately hold to the doctrines of grace and yet have no place to lay his head on the planet where he could live in community while practicing his faith openly seems deeply tragic.

Why would it be deeply tragic? Anabaptists consider Calvinism false doctrine, starting in 1527 when Anabaptism first was birthed, and Reformed people were busy trying to persecute Anabaptists, tossing them in rivers to drown, pursuing them and forcing them to hold secret meetings, exiling them from cities, and generally trying to exterminate them.

[Esdras]

Someone in an Anabaptist church who thinks that once Jesus has saved them and they are following Jesus who then thinks that no matter how much they choose to sin, they could never ever possibly be lost again, would be viewed as a very confused person in need of spiritual help and guidance. (Eternal Security or Perserverance of the Saints)

On your first point we are certainly agreed. I don’t think most Reformed folks believe someone can continue in sin and never be lost despite the many warnings in the Scriptures. Most folks I’ve encountered, including myself, would say those people were demonstrating they were never saved to begin with. Where there’s fire there’s heat, and so we expect that where there’s saving faith, we would expect that such a person would evidence this faith with good works.

My Father-in-Law is actually a Free Will Baptist, and some in their camp believe something very close to what you're describing. Profession of faith becomes a type of Christian Shahada, almost, whereby you can live however you'd like once you've been 'saved'. Almost every Reformed person I've encountered would completely reject this notion.

Someone in an Anabaptist church who thinks God creates some people who will never, ever be able to accept Jesus' gift and follow Jesus would also be viewed as a quite demented person. (Double Predestination)

On this point, I believe many Reformed folk would be comfortable with double predestination. I was not born into this expression of Christianity by any means and when I would’ve identified as an Independent Fundamental Baptist, I did struggle with the notion of Molinism or Middle Knowledge. If the LORD sovereignly chooses which universe to actualize where a free choice (in a libertarian sense) is made, Arminianism in my walk with the Lord began to seem unsatisfactory in the sense that it didn’t completely alleviate the problem for me. Romans 9, for me, and I think many Reformed folk would be seen as a precious thing.

Anabaptists also don't believe in infant baptism, rather obviously. Calvinists generally do. Anabaptists don't believe that one's family is automatically elect; Calvinists generally do and hence why they feel comfortable practicing infant baptism as some kind of "covenant symbol" to replace circumcision.

On this point many Particular Baptists are 100% agreed as well.

There was in Zurich for about 2 years from 1525-1527, I guess?

This is a fascinating detail. I’ll endeavor to learn more about this.

Why would it be deeply tragic? Anabaptists consider Calvinism false doctrine, starting in 1527 when Anabaptism first was birthed, and Reformed people were busy trying to persecute Anabaptists, tossing them in rivers to drown, pursuing them and forcing them to hold secret meetings, exiling them from cities, and generally trying to exterminate them.

No doubt, what Reformed folk during that time did was disgusting, abhorrent, and I completely and wholly deny that they had any grounds to perspective your spiritual forebears, friend.

On the whole I would say I’m far more aligned with Anabaptists and Brethren (soteriology aside) than with any other Reformed family I know.

I suppose it would be tragic because freedom of worship and religious expression and the right to community and living out beliefs in peace ought to be universal.

Cults and heretics and worldlings have their villages and sects and ecovillages, but an Anabaptist that may come to accept the doctrines of grace would be forced to choose between a self-imposed muzzle or a community-imposed exile.

Even Australia had humble beginnings. Perhaps a place might be carved out for those with no where else to go as a way of loving one’s neighbor.

Thank you again for your willingness to dialogue with me, friend. I am learning a lot and I hope that what has been written will be read in the same spirit of meekness in which I have offered it.

[eccentric_rambler]

I suppose it would be tragic because freedom of worship and religious expression and the right to community and living out beliefs in peace ought to be universal.

Welcome Esdras.

The idea that there is a right to spiritual community strikes me as wrong. Spiritual community, from an Anabaptist viewpoint, is rooted in submission and giving up one's self. It takes time and trust to come to the point of saying "This isn't how I see it, but it is how my brothers see it. I may not agree with them but I value our community enough to lay this aside/not bring it up/not push my point." Some things are too big for that. Other things are closer to theoretical. Most Anabaptists are more concerned with theology that affects what we do, than with soteriology.

[Esdras]

I suppose it would be tragic because freedom of worship and religious expression and the right to community and living out beliefs in peace ought to be universal.

Welcome Esdras.

The idea that there is a right to spiritual community strikes me as wrong. Spiritual community, from an Anabaptist viewpoint, is rooted in submission and giving up one's self. It takes time and trust to come to the point of saying "This isn't how I see it, but it is how my brothers see it. I may not agree with them but I value our community enough to lay this aside/not bring it up/not push my point." Some things are too big for that. Other things are closer to theoretical. Most Anabaptists are more concerned with theology that affects what we do, than with soteriology.

This is a very helpful perspective, thank you for sharing it, as well as for the warm welcome. Soteriology that seeks to exalt Christ can, I think, be very practical. But as Anabaptists know perhaps much better than I do, that head knowledge can be abused and used to excuse all types of awful and aberrant behavior (e.g. Hyper-Calvinism, persecution, etc.).

[nett]

I’ve long lamented the fact that no place exists for such a person, if my research was to be believed. Somewhere along the way Protestants seem to have lost (or outright discarded) many distinctives that make Anabaptist faith and communities such a treasure to learn about (e.g. mutual aid, communal living, daily walking with the Lord, etc.).

I (and a lot of other anabaptists) would see the loss you describe as a direct result of reformed belief and thinking. Reformed thinking seems to have a strong relating to enlightenment individualism.

[Esdras]

I’ve long lamented the fact that no place exists for such a person, if my research was to be believed. Somewhere along the way Protestants seem to have lost (or outright discarded) many distinctives that make Anabaptist faith and communities such a treasure to learn about (e.g. mutual aid, communal living, daily walking with the Lord, etc.).

I (and a lot of other anabaptists) would see the loss you describe as a direct result of reformed belief and thinking. Reformed thinking seems to have a strong relating to enlightenment individualism.

It does seem to produce a bunch of folks content to sit in ivory towers rather than put their hands to the plow, doesn’t it? The brethren I go out and evangelize with have long lamented this “frozen chosen” business that many Reformed folk steep themselves in. It is a remarkably disappointing norm.

[Neto]

As former missionaries with a non-Mennonite mission agency, we worked with Christians from all sorts of faith groups, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists of all shades, and Reformed as well (even one who is a 5-Point Calvinist). So we have friends that we call 'brother' & 'sister' that hold to many divergent views, but that doesn't mean that we feel the need for mixing their theological views into our own belief system. Recognizing that 'you don't have to be Mennonite to be Christian' doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything they believe.

I do believe in the security of the believer, but my explanation of that is "As long as you believe, you are eternally secure". (I would also point out that the word 'believe' in the NT basically means 'obey'.)

Is God's grace irresistible? Well, His grace is perfect, with nothing lacking, so logically speaking, it must also be irresistible. However, God wants willing children, not those who would resist if they were able. So, He created us with free will, essentially giving us the ability to resist the irresistible.
[(My illustration of why I say God wants willing children is this: IF there were such a thing as a 'love potion', by which a man or woman could 'force' the object of their attraction to love them (and marry them), would they not also often wonder if this 'love' was willing, or not? I think so; I think it would be like an infected festering wound that would never heal, putting forth emotional puss.]

Total Depravity - I recognize and accept that without the call of the Holy Spirit I could not choose to follow God. Without the power of God that is available to me through Jesus' death & resurrection, flowing into me by the work of the Holy Spirit, not only could I not live in righteousness, I could not even choose to believe, and follow. (I do fully realize that this is not what Calvinists mean by this terminology.)

[Esdras]

As former missionaries with a non-Mennonite mission agency, we worked with Christians from all sorts of faith groups, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Baptists of all shades, and Reformed as well (even one who is a 5-Point Calvinist). So we have friends that we call 'brother' & 'sister' that hold to many divergent views, but that doesn't mean that we feel the need for mixing their theological views into our own belief system. Recognizing that 'you don't have to be Mennonite to be Christian' doesn't mean that we need to agree with everything they believe.

I do believe in the security of the believer, but my explanation of that is "As long as you believe, you are eternally secure". (I would also point out that the word 'believe' in the NT basically means 'obey'.)

Is God's grace irresistible? Well, His grace is perfect, with nothing lacking, so logically speaking, it must also be irresistible. However, God wants willing children, not those who would resist if they were able. So, He created us with free will, essentially giving us the ability to resist the irresistible.
[(My illustration of why I say God wants willing children is this: IF there were such a thing as a 'love potion', by which a man or woman could 'force' the object of their attraction to love them (and marry them), would they not also often wonder if this 'love' was willing, or not? I think so; I think it would be like an infected festering wound that would never heal, putting forth emotional puss.]

Total Depravity - I recognize and accept that without the call of the Holy Spirit I could not choose to follow God. Without the power of God that is available to me through Jesus' death & resurrection, flowing into me by the work of the Holy Spirit, not only could I not live in righteousness, I could not even choose to believe, and follow. (I do fully realize that this is not what Calvinists mean by this terminology.)

Thanks for sharing your perspectives here. It’s sensible, helpful, and I even happen to agree with a great deal of it.

[Ernie]

I don’t think most Reformed folks believe someone can continue in sin and never be lost despite the many warnings in the Scriptures.

If that is the case, that most do not belief this, then this is a big shift since the reformation.

Most folks I’ve encountered, including myself, would say those people were demonstrating they were never saved to begin with. Where there’s fire there’s heat, and so we expect that where there’s saving faith, we would expect that such a person would evidence this faith with good works.

We agree with the last sentence, not necessarily the first. We have people who come to us from Reformed settings who were saved and living for Jesus, who then walked away from Jesus into sin and did not repent. While they were sinning, they were told by Reformed folks that they did not have eternal life (which we agree with) and that they never had eternal life (which we do not agree with). These folks know that they had eternal life since they lived in holiness and obedience and had sweet fellowship with God. And they know that they walked away from God when they went back to their sins and had no desire to repent of them. When they come back to God, the Reformed folks tell them they were never saved. But they know better.
Reformed theology is very confusing and harmful to such people.

We believe that Reformed theology was a creation by the Reformers. Not something the apostles taught or tolerated.

[Esdras]

I don’t think most Reformed folks believe someone can continue in sin and never be lost despite the many warnings in the Scriptures.

If that is the case, that most do not belief this, then this is a big shift since the reformation.

Most folks I’ve encountered, including myself, would say those people were demonstrating they were never saved to begin with. Where there’s fire there’s heat, and so we expect that where there’s saving faith, we would expect that such a person would evidence this faith with good works.

We agree with the last sentence, not necessarily the first. We have people who come to us from Reformed settings who were saved and living for Jesus, who then walked away from Jesus into sin and did not repent. While they were sinning, they were told by Reformed folks that they did not have eternal life (which we agree with) and that they never had eternal life (which we do not agree with). These folks know that they had eternal life since they lived in holiness and obedience and had sweet fellowship with God. And they know that they walked away from God when they went back to their sins and had no desire to repent of them. When they come back to God, the Reformed folks tell them they were never saved. But they know better.
Reformed theology is very confusing and harmful to such people.

We believe that Reformed theology was a creation by the Reformers. Not something the apostles taught or tolerated.

Thanks for chiming in. How do Anabaptists interpret verses such as those found in Matthew 7:22-25, the many who were self deceived workers of lawlessness or iniquity, who do not the will of the Father?

I'd also love to hear more from you about how Anabaptists who don't practice mutual aid reckon with verses such as 1 John 3:17, 2 Corinthians 8, Acts 2, Acts 4, or just the simple commands from Jesus Christ our LORD who speaks of going with someone two miles who compels you to go with them one, etc.

Thanks in advance! I'm learning a lot from all of you about Anabaptist perspectives on these topics.