Relationship of early anabaptists and modern Baptists to Orthodoxy

[Michael C.]

Hi, I'm having a discussion with a Baptist friend, and he had me read a book on the history of the baptists which stretches from Apostolic times to the present day. According to the book, The Trail of Blood http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm, Baptists by many names (Donatists, Anabaptists, etc.) were persecuted and martyred from Apostolic times to the present day, by the established "Catholic" church, and by Constantine. In reading the book, it seems to me that it was contrived by the author to "prove" that the Baptists were always around...but I'm not sure how to argue with my friend...any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Michael,

There have been groups in Christian history that have baptised adults, rather than children, or that re-baptised, from very early on -- both groups were rigorously opposed by the Church.

However, equating these various groups with Baptist ecclesiology is inappropriate. Baptist ecclesiology is a direct outgrowth of Reformed theology from the 16th century. The fact that it calls upon certain patterns with regard to ages of baptism that have mirrors in earlier groups, is really neither here nor there. Baptist theology per se is a directly 16th / 17th century phenomenon.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick H.]

Eros and Agape

Dear Michael,

It has been said of American Fundamentalism that it is not so much a set of unique doctrines as it is a mood. And, as with those who would promote the little pamphlet titled The Trail of Blood, there is a mood and a mindset that you are most likely dealing with now that is very ridged.

I have found that when this subject has come up in the past, one might as well put one's head down and try to ram through a concrete block wall as to have an intelligent discussion concerning Baptist History. There is a very closed introverted way of knowing in the ranks of the Independent Baptists especially. So honestly, based on the reading material that you have been given I would say, Run! It is a waste of time to talk to someone about the ecclesiology that they subscribe to when their minds are closed and only inward looking.

But, if you feel led to continue and you are serious about obtaining an informed understanding of Baptist History there is one book that does a super job with this and will give it to you in one shot. It is titled, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, by H. Leon McBeth. He does a very very good job with this subject. For example, you will see at once that it is unwise to even use the term or speak of Baptist ecclesiology with your friend. To even speak of a Baptist ecclesiology is to show one's ignorance at once. Because you will read about the ecclesiology, and church history of the Independent Baptists (which is very interesting to say the least), and then you will read about the ecclesiology of the Southern Baptists, and so on and you will see that there are different views and different schools of thought to be found in the Baptist heritage which are diametrically opposed to each other. Even within the different Baptist traditions you will find disagreement on church polity and history.

However, in the end, I would say do not 'argue' with your friend. This leads only to a glazing over of the eyes and a trading of well honed responses. But, instead remember the words of Karl Barth who said:




Without love, theological work would be miserable polemics and a waste of words.



And, what he said about theological work and agape applies to your situation here as well . . . with your friend.

In Christ,
Rick

[Michael C.]

Dear Dcn. Matthew,

Christ is Born!

Thank you for this ...

I would also like anyone who is more knowledgeable than I am to comment on the Trail of Blood.

[Robert Hegwood]

I grew up Southern Baptist and read that book many years ago...beyond a certain point it just lapses into pious ignorance of history, hanging on the the names of various groups who were denounced by the "offical" Church (and hence probably the "true" church while knowing nothing of what those various groups believed.

Ask your friend if he believes in the Holy Trinity...large swaths of early Anabaptists did not. A number of other precursor and fellow traveler groups did not either...is he claiming his "true faith" is derived from them? Does your friend believe in liturgical worship, priests, bishops, icons and incense and all the rest pretty much the way Orthodox believe and worship now? Donatists believed the same except Donatists were very very strict and unforgiving about certain lapses of the faith and had a very narrow view of how those lapses effected others who knowingly or unknowingly held communion with them. Does your friend's church share a similar outlook and practice of theology and ecclesiology...if not then how does he see the "true church" somehow surviving in them. If I remember correctly the last Donatists disappeared in the 7th or 8th centuries overrun by Muslims.

A little deeper appreciation about who he is claiming to be spiritually descended from might prove to be an eye opener for him.

[Shawn Lazar]

Hi,

I'm familiar with 'Trail of Blood' and books of similar ilk. Certainly, the Orthodox and Catholic churches have left a 'trail of blood' in their wake, having killed innumerable people (often each other). Indeed, the Anabaptists seem to be the only Christian group in history that did not practice wholesale slaughter. That much is true. But it is false to think of the various dissident groups in history as holding to full-blown Baptist beliefs.

That being said, and I think this is the major claim of Carroll's 'Trail of Blood', there ARE tendencies within those dissident groups that echo with the concerns of Anabaptists/Baptists: the separation of church and state, the necessity of faith for being a Christian, and so forth.

Moroever, the author of 'Trail of Blood' is undeniably right in his suggestion that the structure and worship of the church has changed and developed over the centuries, especially once the church came under the wing of the Roman Empire. The difference, of course, is whether these changes were beneficial (Orthodox view) or harmful (Baptist view). Surprisingly, I'm sure many Orthodox would agree with Carroll's claims that these changes and distortions were especially apparent, and especially harmful, in the Latin church under the Papacy (Mariolatry, for example).

As such, I imagine your debate with the Baptist friend will have to progress beyond the works of amateur historians (like Carrol), and examine the earliest beliefs of the church according to the best historical research. Once there, if I may say so, the picture will probably look mixed, being neither unambiguously for the modern Orthodox or Baptist vision of the church.

For instance, even as a catechuman, I still cannot honestly confess that the earliest christians baptized anyone but believers alone (whether small children or adults), and I know of few serious historian who thinks they did. (You don't need to depend on the works of Independant Baptists for this view: see, for instance, Karl Barth's work on the baptismal beliefs of the early church). Likewise, it seems the earliest Christians were pacifists (Tertullian, Hippolytus) who balked at the religious use of images in worship (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius) even though simple commemorative images may have been acceptable (Catacombs) as they are in all Baptist churches.

On the other hand, from reading the works of St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is easy to see that the early church was liturgical, believed in some kind of real presence, had the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, thought we had free-will, and that by it our salvation could be lost, and so forth, all of which go against the grain of modern Baptist thought (though not Anabaptist thought).

I guess my point is, these questions are too important to be left to polemical writings such as 'Trail of Blood'. Challenge your friend. Read the latest historical works together, always being aware of the various axes to grind, in order to understand what happened to the church over the centuries.

Cheers,
Shawn

[M.C. Steenberg]

There seems to be a great deal of unfounded comment in the final paragraphs of the previous post. But that aside, the question of anabaptist traditions as some kind of basis for modern-day Baptist belief and practice is relatively absurd. There are elements in common, or at least one basic element in common; but that is primarily only with regard to baptismal conduct. Theological beliefs in most other points would be hard-pressed for similarities between early anabaptist groups and Baptist reformed theology.

The flaw in this kind of purpose-linking of modern practice and historical 'predecessors' is (a) that it is grounded in a precious view of history, that takes only minute portions of the witness of past groups and activities as a basis for comparison, and (b) that comparison and contrast with a modern group, which does not not have any direct connection to the ancient realities is, at best, misleading historicising. It is rather like saying that I personally bear the heritage of George Washington's struggles and ideologies, simply because I, too, have not cut down my apple tree.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Rick H.]

. . . the question of anabaptist traditions as some kind of basis for modern-day Baptist belief and practice is relatively absurd.

[ . . . ] It is rather like saying that I personally bear the heritage of George Washington's struggles and ideologies, simply because I, too, have not cut down my apple tree.



Regardless of what kind of tree it was, Dcn. Matthew has really summed this up very well in the above. Yes, absurd is the word. A vain attempt to buttress a pathetic Christian separatism and isolationism is to be found in this fundamentalist mish-mash. And, realizing now that that sounds a little harsh, I will go make a latte even though it is a still a little early in the day. However, ultimately Robert sums up very well in the following:





A little deeper appreciation about who he is claiming to be spiritually descended from might prove to be an eye opener for him.



It has been my experience that most people who subscribe to this presentation are in the line of others who only know what they are told, and they don't want to know anything else. Michael, barring divine intervention, based on my past experience with this very subject this is in many ways like the KJO (King James Only) debate for the same group . . . I 'd rather take a nap than participate in such a discussion past a certain point.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

If you actually take a minute to look at the various groups listed in The Trail of Blood, where they were located in time and geography, as well as look at what they taught, you will see a great deal of discontinuity. All these disparate "remnants" are separated, often by great lapses in time, certainly by geography, and as has been already mentioned, often taught very, very different things. There is simply no way that the dots can be "connected" in any continuous manner. At best, then, you can say that the Church has existed, disappeared and mysteriously reappeared in different places.

Where is the continuity? Where is the consistency? The Trail of Blood is nothing more than a recognition that "pedigree" is important and that the Baptist Church does NOT possess any such thing. This is a desperate attempt to create one out of nothing, taking a random collection of heresies and trying to force a "pattern" to it.

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Mr. Steenberg,

You wrote: "There seems to be a great deal of unfounded comment in the final paragraphs of the previous post."

Are you referring to my claim that the earliest Christians may indeed have held some beliefs in common with the Anabaptists, that are not shared by modern-day Orthodox? Yes, it was unfounded. That is to say, I offered no proof for my bare assertion. There are just too many quotes to take account of. So I'll post a few here, only dealing with the subject of images. No doubt Michael C. will have to deal with these verses in dialogue with his Baptist friend, as they are fairly prevelant in Anabaptist/Baptist polemical literature. Best to look at them now. For reference's sake, the numbering (1.111) refers to the corresponding volume and page number in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

ON IMAGES

“Ages before, Moses expressly commanded that neither a carved, nor molten, nor molded, nor painted likeness should be made. This was so that we would not cling to things of sense, but pass to spiritual objects. For familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the reverence of what is divine.” Clement of Alexandria (2.451)

“Works of art cannot be sacred and divine.” Clement of Alexandria (2.530)

“In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images,… does it not merit praise instead of penalty that we have rejected what we have come to see as error?” Tertullian (3.28)

[Hermogenes the heretic] “despises God’s law in his painting, and he maintains repeated marriages. Although he purports to follow the law of God in defense of his lust, he despises it in respect of his art.” Tertullian (3.4777)

[The disciples of Carpocrates] “make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time… and were fashioned by Pilate.” Hippolytus (5.114)

“These different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals I have previously enumerated. In contrast, we have refrained from offering to the Divinity honor by any such means, seeing that they are better adapted to demons.” Origen (4.477)

“Neither painter nor image-maker existed in the nation of Israel, for the Law expelled all such person from it. In that way, there was no pretext for the construction of images. For image-making is an art that attracts the attention of foolish men. It drags the eyes of the soul down from God to earth. Accordingly, there was among them a Law to the following effect: “Do not transgress the Law and make to yourself a carved image, or any likeness of male or female.” Origen (4.510)

In reply to Celsus who derided the Christians for not using altars, or images, just like the Scythians, Origen replied: “To this, our answer is that if the Scythians… cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not follow that our reason for objecting to these things is the same as theirs – even though we cannot tolerate them anymore than they can… The Scythians, the nomadic Lybians, the godless Seres, and the Persians agree in this with the Christians and the Jews. However, they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these other groups abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God and reducing it to the worship of material things… It is not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayer to images. Origen (4.635-4.637)

“The likeness of man appears to be necessary at that time when he is far away. But it will become unnecessary when he is at hand. However, in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and ca never be absent, it is plain that an image is always unnecessary.” Lactantius (7.42)


If these do not count as an unequivocal prohibition against the religious use of images in worship, I'm not quite sure what would. I could offer a similar list regarding the pacifism of the early Christians. In any case, as a catechuman, I must say, these verses worry me. Is there an alternative interpretation I'm not recognizing?


In Him,
Shawn

PS: These quotes are taken from David Bercot's 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs' (Hendrikson, 1998)

[Antonios]

Dear Shawn,

The topic of this thread about any possible relation of the early anabaptists to modern Baptists seems to have surprisingly turn into a query (or rather, critique) on the use of religious icons. I would recommend you speaking to the parish priest where you are a catechumen, if in fact you are one.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Shawn Lazar wrote:



If these do not count as an unequivocal prohibition against the religious use of images in worship, I'm not quite sure what would. I could offer a similar list regarding the pacifism of the early Christians. In any case, as a catechuman, I must say, these verses worry me. Is there an alternative interpretation I'm not recognizing?


The above does indeed seem to reflect a concern within the Church concerning pictorial representations. To what extent though there was this concern it is difficult to say. We do know from the archeological evidence for example that pictorial representation (eg the catacombs) existed from early times within the Church. So it hardly seems correct to think of the above quotes as being part of an unequivocal prohibition.

Still though we do need to take account the above quotes and what they reflect. Indeed they are very interesting considering the much later theological defense of icons from someone like St John of Damascus. Is what St John says in defense of icons a deviation from the position of Origen?

Origen's attitude seems well summed up in his words that, " For image-making is an art that attracts the attention of foolish men. It drags the eyes of the soul down from God to earth. Accordingly, there was among them a Law to the following effect: “Do not transgress the Law and make to yourself a carved image, or any likeness of male or female.”

First off context is important here. Origen is making an apology for Christianity in reply to criticisms from those who are Roman and pagan in origin. Evidently one of these criticisms is that Christianity has little pictorial or statuary representation of the gods. This must be part of the wider attack on the Church for being impious in regards to the gods.

Origen however replies that having no great amount of pictorial representation (and in comparison to pagan places of worship a church must have looked quite austere) does not add up to impiety. On the contrary it actually points to how Christianity is founded on a deeper and more correct understanding of Divinity. And it is in this sense that the Church has little pictorial representation, not wanting to drag, "the eyes of the soul down from God to earth."

The point here is that this statement is not part of an unequivocal prohibition of the Church against pictorial representation. Rather it is an explanation of why the Church at the time as compared to Roman pagan religion has little that is pictorial.

One can also see however that from the wider perspective Origen and St John of Damascus do not really contradict each other. Both in fact defend the same theological principle that in what we see within the Church our eyes not be dragged down from God to earth. Indeed this is the exact point argued against the iconoclasts after all in that icons have developed not as secular art but rather as a theological art which lifts the eyes of our soul to God & higher things.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

The quotes provided are a textbook example of the Protestant tendency for proof-texting, using selected quotes out of context to try and "prove" a point that is not supported when the quote itself is looked at in the proper context, the "bigger picture" so-to-speak.

We do not need to hide the fact that the question of icons was a topic of debate in the early church, and that arguments on both sides of the issue were made. It is certainly no secret that the iconoclasts feverously persecuted and killed the iconodules for many years before the controversy was finally settled once and for all in the 7th Ecumenical Council. Orthodoxy has no need for infallibility, even our saints can be wrong on some subjects without compromising their sanctity or our reverence for them. It is not one saint or another that established the reverence for icons, it was the Church as a whole, deciding in council, as it has done since the beginning, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit who decided the Triumph of Orthodoxy (right belief), which we celebrate at the beginning of Holy Lent every year.

Some of the quotes presented are, sorry to say, rather weak, particularly those offered from Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and Tertullian. First off, quotes saying that to portray God in an image prove nothing since we do not permit images of God beyond those God Himself has presented us. But we do picture the Son because God gave us His Image in Himself, incarnate. People saw Him. They touched Him. If cameras had existed back then, they could have taken His picture. To say that we cannot show His earthly features is to deny He existed as a man. Icons are nothing more than Holy Scripture and Holy Writings (the lives of the saints) in pictures instead of words. A picture is worth a thousand words, so icons are a very compact way of showing and explaining Scripture to many people who were otherwise illiterate. Tertullian is not deriding images in general, he is criticizing the art of a particular individual who obviously had other issues as well (repeated marriages). To claim this as a general prohibition against icons fails the snicker test. When Hippolytus talks of counterfeit images, why must we assume that there are no legitimate images? And of course Origen got a few things wrong, even if it took the Church a little while to figure that out.

[Shawn Lazar]

As I said in my post, I thought the quotes are related to the thread, because this is precisely the kind of issue that is raised in Carroll's 'Trail of Blood' and other Orthodox - Anabaptist polemics. Indeed, the book from which these quotes were collected was by a former Anglican priest (Bercot) who, when examining the patristic evidence, converted to Anabaptism (I believe he is now a Mennonite). In any case, both groups claim to better represent the original vision of the early church. The question is, who is right?

Have I prooftexted these verses? Yes, absolutely. I'm not going to write out the whole paragraphs!!! :) But that's why I gave the references, so interested persons can check the context for themselves. As it stands, far from being weak, I thought they were a fairly unambiguous selection. The fathers appealed to (a) God's law against making images, and (b) the consentual understanding that Jews shared with Christians on the subject, and would then proceed to condemn the pagans and Gnostics who broke the law.

Is there a pro-Orthodox way of interpreting these verses? I think I can understand how a committed iconophile might interpret these early fathers as only prohibiting certain kinds of images, while allowing for others. But, as much as I would like to believe this interpretation (I'd make my life easier) I can't, for several reasons.

First, as I said myself, there WERE primitive images used in the catacombs. But whether such images were employed elsewhere, and how they figured in early Christian worship is unclear. Certainly the iconography we find in the 8th century evolved over time both in style, and in the way it figures in worship.

Second, isn't John of Damascus' argument for icons based on a fallacy? God forbade making images, that's clear enough. But he also commanded, in very select circumstances, that sacred imagery be made (in the Temple and on the Ark of the Covenant). John of Damascus' argument is to take these very few exceptions and make it a rule that believers can employ as much Christian art as they please, as if to say, 'If God can do it, then so can we!' But I don't see how John's interpretation is correct. If it were, presumably, the Jews would have been making icons and other kinds of sacred art for thousands of years! But they didn't. Rather, they understood the 2nd commandment as the rule everyone must follow, and the Temple decorations were the exception. It seems, from what I read of the early fathers, that the earliest Christians concurred.

If there is an Orthodox historian, or book by an Orthodox historian, who would offer a plausible counter-interpretation, I am sincerely and truly all ears!

In Him,
Shawn


PS: On a separate note, and by way of giving some personal biography, although I am a catechumen (in ROCOR), I'm torn precisely between Orthodoxy and Anabaptism. You may be surprised to know how Anabaptism has some things more in common with Orthodoxy than with evangelicals. For instance, Mennonites believe in an episcopal form of church government (Conservative Mennonites have Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons). Moreover, Mennonites reject the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, believing that we are saved by faith and works. Hence, they also have a very synergistic view of salvation. And lastly, they are quite ascetic in their daily lives. One of the criticisms brought against the Anabaptists is that they made everyone live like monks!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Shawn,

Before going further on however I think you need to look more closely at the tradition of the Orthodox church about this. I have never heard about any prescription against images in the early Church. There are no canons or unwritten tradition passed on to us that there was such a prescription.

Rather as I said yesterday what you are seeing in the quoted passages is the apologetic response to the accusation by pagans that Christian churches seemed to have so few images as compared to those of Roman religion.

This response does not come from a prescription against images- this is a misreading of the texts quoted- but rather only seeks to give an explanation of how Christians do not see images in the same way as that of pagan culture. This in turn will provide a theological foundation for the development of iconography.

In other words when read from within the tradition of the Church; which after all is the source of the texts quoted!- the witness reads in the exact opposite way than that of modern iconoclasts.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

John of Damascus' argument is to take these very few exceptions and make it a rule that believers can employ as much Christian art as they please, as if to say, 'If God can do it, then so can we!' But I don't see how John's interpretation is correc

Actually, you totally mischaracterized St. John's argument, so it is your interpretation of St. John's interpretation that is not correct.

The fact is that iconography is very controlled and rigidly prescribed. Much that could be classified as "Christian art" cannot be called iconography and is not appropriate for reverence. Iconography therefore is also an "exception" fully in concert with the Scriptural examples given.

But again you ignore the biggest, most obvious reason that iconography is permitted. Something changed between the OT and the NT. God became man. He had human features. He was seen, heard, felt by humans. If He could be seen by people, then He can be pictured by people. To deny that we can represent His earthly form is to deny He had an earthly form, and that would be heresy.

As to the Anabaptists being perfect pacifists, that depends on who you ask. If you accept the "Trail of Blood" you have a problem, because some of the groups claimed to be part of the Anabaptist line were NOT pacifist, like the Waldenses and the Cathars. If you don't accept the "Trail of Blood" then you simply have another Protestant denomination or rather small family of denominations that do not have anything resembling Apostolic succession.

And when you get back to who is "representing the original version of the Church", and decide on "anabaptist", you still have the problem of WHICH anabaptists and the question remains "who is right?"

If you want a more complete answer, I recommend that you study the record and history of the 7th Ecumenical Council. There are many sources that defend the Orthodox view and use of icons, St. John of Damascus merely being the most well-known, particularly since he was a slave in a moslem-dominated society (image-hating). Just google "iconography" and you will find a wealth of information. The OCA and GOARCH websites also have a great deal of information in their Q&A sections.

[Olga]

Dear Shawn

The defence of iconography did not begin with St John of Damascus. If you have read his treatise, you will find he quotes extensively from scripture and the Fathers, including Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and even as far back as St Dionysius the Areopagite in a letter of his to St John the Evangelist. Iconography has been part of the Church since its inception, and was not a later phenomenon as some might want us to believe. Vast numbers of icons of the pre-8th C have indeed been destroyed or succumbed to the ravages of time, yet some catacomb art still survives, as do the mosaics of various ancient churches, and the icons of the Monastery of St Catherine of Sinai, which include some of the earliest portable icons in existence.

Herman wrote:


But again you ignore the biggest, most obvious reason that iconography is permitted. Something changed between the OT and the NT. God became man. He had human features. He was seen, heard, felt by humans. If He could be seen by people, then He can be pictured by people. To deny that we can represent His earthly form is to deny He had an earthly form, and that would be heresy.


This is a very good reworking of the following from St John of Damascus, which is perhaps the most succint expression of why icons are permitted, and why they are an inseperable part of Orthodox life:


Of old God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease from worshipping the matter through which my salvation has been effected.