Magisterial Reformation vs Radical Reformation

[WisdomTree]

A twin (http://www.christianforums.com/t7785932/) prequel spin-off to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7784575/, which itself is a spin-off: http://www.christianforums.com/t7783651/, which itself is a sequel http://www.christianforums.com/t7783009/, which itself is a sequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7749617/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7748641/, which itself is a direct prequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7747424/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7745268/, which itself is a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7741459/, which itself is a direct sequel to: http://www.christianforums.com/t7740345/, which itself was a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7738969/, which itself was a spin-off of: http://www.christianforums.com/t7732542/.

Due to unresolved issues as a result form complexities, this is a direct sequel to the thread: Protestant Reformation vs Primitive Restoration, where the content of the original thread is split in two.

To simply put; in terms of doctrines and practices, what were the differences between the Magisterials and the Radicals, and do those differences still exist today?

Magisterials (Protestants):

• Anglican
• Calvinist
• Lutheran
• Zwinglian

Radicals (Anabaptists):

• Amish
• Brethren
• Hutterite
• Mennonite
• Non-Trinitarians (cannot be discussed per forum rules)

 

[WisdomTree]

During the medieval period, there were numerous issues with the state of the Church in Western Europe after having gone through a period of moral decline within the upper hierarch of the Roman Church (Curia). As such, the question never was whether there ought to be a reformation, but rather when there should be a reformation and how it should be executed. This of course didn't stop individuals from acting on their own such as Pierre Waldo, John Wycliffe, and Jan Huss, all of whom who were declared heretics either due to their works or their followers' actions, with the execution of Hus resulting in a war in the Holy Roman Empire.

The reformation is considered to have started when an Augustinian Monk, Martin Luther, nailed the infamous Ninety-Five Theses on the door of Castle Church of Wittenburg (Germany), as was the custom at the time. Likewise, Huldrych Zwingli wrote the Sixty-Seven Conclusions which sparked the movement in Switzerland. Unfortunately, the two movement would not be able unite against the Roman Church due to unreconciliable differences in one of their key doctrines, the Eucharist. The matter was not solved by the death of Zwingli, who was replaced by John Calvin, even though Calvin's theology was slightly less "radical" than those of Zwingli's.

During this time, the Henry VIII vigorously defended the doctrines of the Catholic Church against the "heresies" of Lutheranism where he personally wrote the Defence of the Seven Sacraments resulting in him being awarded Fidei Defensor by Leo X, then sitting Pope of Rome. However this friendly relations between England and Rome were not to last due to the troubles with the King's personal life as well as what he viewed as a right as King resulting in the break between the Church of England and the Roman Church.

Though the reformation brought in a lot of changes to the Church atmosphere to both Protestants and Catholics alike, there some things which even the Reformers dared not to change, things such as the dogma of the Trinity, the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, and the practice of paedobaptism. There those who opposed these however, especially the practice of paedobaptism within the Zwinglian camp. These "radicals" thought that Zwingli did not go far enough with the reformation movement, where they decided that baptism ought to be by believers only thus started the practice of "re-baptizing" anyone who were baptized as an infant, thus starting the Anabaptist movement. Unlike the "magisterials" of the reformers who had the backings of the state, these anabaptists did not since they called for the separation of state and church. Because of this and being labeled "radicals" and "heretics", they were relentlessly persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants alike. Later on, the anabaptist movement will split into several smaller factions as it is seen today.

 

[WisdomTree]

Background introduction complete.

 

[Merrily]

You'll find very few differences between most modern Mennonites and most Methodists beyond perhaps the peace testimony.
Even the 'continuing' groups such as the Amish and Hutterites factionalise.
Swartzentruber Amish have little in common with Beachy Amish for example and a Bruderhof is a different place than the Hutterite colony just up the pike.
History tends to be written by the victors so the Anabaptists had something of a bad press back in the day, sometimes justified.
Munster was a mess.
Usually though persecution of Anabaptist groups followed the usual inequitable path that it tends towards.

 

[WisdomTree]

You'll find very few differences between most modern Mennonites and most Methodists beyond perhaps the peace testimony.
Even the 'continuing' groups such as the Amish and Hutterites factionalise.
Swartzentruber Amish have little in common with Beachy Amish for example and a Bruderhof is a different place than the Hutterite colony just up the pike.
History tends to be written by the victors so the Anabaptists had something of a bad press back in the day, sometimes justified.
Munster was a mess.
Usually though persecution of Anabaptist groups followed the usual inequitable path that it tends towards.

You seem quite knowledgable regarding the Radical Reformation and the Anabaptist movement. Please, do share more.

 

[Merrily]

It was a study interest and I still correspond with chums in the UK Anabaptist network.
Have watched that emerge over the past twenty-years from a Mennonite mission into something uniquely indigenous and still evolving.
They are currently factionalising into conservative ( nostalgist) and radical wings.
What I have called elsewhere the 'black braces' ( suspenders) schism.
The conservative Anabaptist network men have come to favour broad black braces always on show.
The radicals favour Boden.
Some years ago we lived in the shadow of Mow Cop where the first Primitive meetings happened I became interested in, to what extent; the Moravians ( the Zinzendorf manifestation) had impacted on early Primitive Methodism ( Hugh Bourne/ William Clowes).
Were they 'plain' Wesleyans or had they gone to primary sources?
Inconclusive but a fascinating introduction to Anabaptist ecclesiology.
I have the luxury of time to read.
What's your own interest in the Anabaptist paths?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Interesting... subscribing.

 

[WisdomTree]

It was a study interest and I still correspond with chums in the UK Anabaptist network.
Have watched that emerge over the past twenty-years from a Mennonite mission into something uniquely indigenous and still evolving.
They are currently factionalising into conservative ( nostalgist) and radical wings.
What I have called elsewhere the 'black braces' ( suspenders) schism.
The conservative Anabaptist network men have come to favour broad black braces always on show.
The radicals favour Boden.
Some years ago we lived in the shadow of Mow Cop where the first Primitive meetings happened I became interested in, to what extent; the Moravians ( the Zinzendorf manifestation) had impacted on early Primitive Methodism ( Hugh Bourne/ William Clowes).
Were they 'plain' Wesleyans or had they gone to primary sources?
Inconclusive but a fascinating introduction to Anabaptist ecclesiology.
I have the luxury of time to read.
What's your own interest in the Anabaptist paths?

Don't actually have much interest in the Anabaptists aye. Not that I don't find them interesting, just that currently my interest only goes to the reformers (barely) and Eastern Christianity. However, the unexplored part of the Reformation is important to know since a lot of their theology has been adapted by a lot of modern day Protestants (unintentionally).

Interesting... subscribing.

You got anything to say, "Mark of Fresh"?

 

[hedrick]

Historically Lutheran and Reformed are pretty close I think. Both had similar concerns with the church, and most of the ideas are shared. There are differences on the Real Presence and a few other areas.

Luther and Calvin tended to concentrate on doctrine. Luther, in particular, thought that the Church was corrupt because it had lost track of God’s grace. So to him the main point of the Reformation was doctrinal reformation. It tended to operate from the pulpit.

The Radical Reformation thought the problem went back to Constantine, and the involvement of the Church and State. That inherently brought abuse, and it also meant that the Church was identified with the whole population, which could never be fully converted. Hence they wanted to return to a “gathered Church,” with committed members. This also led to believers’ baptism. The Radical Reformation got involved in peasant revolts, as well, while Luther and Calvin both viewed those with horror. A result of this all is that the Radical Reformation was less theological.

Over the long run, I think many people concluded that both were right. Modern Protestant churches are mostly separate from the State, and all (even the descendants of the Radical side) are guided by at least many key elements from Luther and Calvin.

However a split remains between confessional churches (Lutheran and Reformed) and non-confessional churches, even though there is a fair amount of shared Protestant theology. The confessional churches maintain the concentration on theology, and infant baptism. The rest tend to have a strongly emphasis on experience, and often practice believers’ baptism.

The Anglicans, and following them the Methodists, have their own features. While the Anglican Reformation tended to be theologically Reformed, that theology was grafted onto a catholic church. As a result, the changes were less drastic than for Lutherans and Reformed. A fair amount of catholic theology remained, and there has been more diversity of theology, since the center of the Anglican Church has generally been seen as worship rather than theology. Methodists, because of their history, share features of all of these movements.

It’s interesting to note that the Lutheran and Reforned traditions, at least in the US and Europe, have mostly continued Luther’s and Calvin’s commitment to ongoing reformation and following Scriptural scholarship wherever it leads. While there are conservative versions, the largest bodies in the US and other English-speaking countries, are now mainline. My theory is that these traditions have from the beginning had the strongest commitment to continuing Scriptural scholarship, and thus have been the most willing to change based on developments in that scholarship.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My knowledge of the radical reformation is mostly filtered through Mennonite sources and a small but slowly growing branch of Indigenous Australian Anabaptists. The most noticeable differences between this Australian Anabaptist Association (AAA) and the magisterial reformation is in these areas:

• The canon of scripture is perceived as quite wide in the AAA, many accept not only the 73 books of the Catholic Canon but some also accept many or most of the books included in the wider canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
• Non violence is a core theological theme.
• Theology is views as transformational and ethical more so than doctrinal; thus the loci of theology in AAA tend to be shaped by ethical concerns. This is also reflected in the Writings of North American Anabaptists such a John Howard Yoder (+1997).
• There are, of course, theological and doctrinal themes in AAA life and teaching too; among which is a strong emphasis on the corporate church and individual incorporation in the community. This plays a role in issues surrounding justification and sanctification as well as sinlessness. These concepts operate on a corporate level thus a church community may be seen as sinless and sins may be attributable to the community rather than merely as individualistic infraction of law and grace.
• I've also noticed a fairly open acceptance of theological ideas that mitigate against traditional Protestant categories - such as God knowledge being comprehensive of past and present events but contingent on what happens as time advances thus God accomplished his will by his omnipotence and does not have knowledge of the future because such knowledge is not possible; this theme is very similar to "open theism" but has its subtleties.

I hope these points may lead to some discussion and research, I am abut to head for bed.

God bless.

 

[hedrick]

My knowledge of the radical reformation is mostly filtered through Mennonite sources and a small but slowly growing branch of Indigenous Australian Anabaptists. The most noticeable differences between this Australian Anabaptist Association (AAA) and the magisterial reformation is in these areas:

• The canon of scripture is perceived as quite wide in the AAA, many accept not only the 73 books of the Catholic Canon but some also accept many or most of the books included in the wider canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
• Non violence is a core theological theme.
• Theology is views as transformational and ethical more so than doctrinal; thus the loci of theology in AAA tend to be shaped by ethical concerns. This is also reflected in the Writings of North American Anabaptists such a John Howard Yoder (+1997).
• There are, of course, theological and doctrinal themes in AAA life and teaching too; among which is a strong emphasis on the corporate church and individual incorporation in the community. This plays a role in issues surrounding justification and sanctification as well as sinlessness. These concepts operate on a corporate level thus a church community may be seen as sinless and sins may be attributable to the community rather than merely as individualistic infraction of law and grace.
• I've also noticed a fairly open acceptance of theological ideas that mitigate against traditional Protestant categories - such as God knowledge being comprehensive of past and present events but contingent on what happens as time advances thus God accomplished his will by his omnipotence and does not have knowledge of the future because such knowledge is not possible; this theme is very similar to "open theism" but has its subtleties.

I hope these points may lead to some discussion and research, I am abut to head for bed.

God bless.

I find it interesting to see the many similarities between this and the current mainline tradition. It seems to me that the anabaptists maintained less continuity with the Catholic theological tradition than the magisterial Reformation. The Reformers thought they were restoring Augustine and other classical theology (though it's not so clear how right they actually were). The anabaptists don't seem to have had that theme. That led them to be less contacted to traditional theology, and thus not to emphasize the kinds of doctrines that current separate traditional Protestantism from the mainline. Also, as a small persecuted community they may have been closer to the context of the early Church than the Reformers were.

But I do find it interesting just how much convergence there is between two movements whose history is so different. And why the most radical reformation in the US -- the restoration -- led to a rather different result (though of course one branch of that, the Disciples of Christ, is a mainline church). At this point anabaptists are acknowledged by many in the mainline is being leaders in looking at the implications of nonviolence for theology, such as the doctrine of the atonement.

 

[WisdomTree]

Hmm, interesting... What do you fellows thinks of some of the more modern groups? If one were to classify based strictly on theology, would they be Magisterial or Radical?

 

[hedrick]

Hmm, interesting... What do you fellows thinks of some of the more modern groups? If one were to classify based strictly on theology, would they be Magisterial or Radical?

I don't think you can do that. The newer groups were created because of different issues. And some of those issues largely died out and were replaced by others.

E.g. modern baptists sound at first glance like part of the Radical Reformation, but they combine a few emphases of it with a more conventional theology.

And if you're going to look at groups today, there's a cluster of issues such as inerrancy and a reading of the Gospel as about primarily individual salvation, and use of modern critical methods.

You can try to see various groups today as being more similar to the Magisterial or Radical Reformation, but in many cases it's a real stretch. This is particularly true because many US groups have historical connections with both.

 

[WisdomTree]

I don't think you can do that. The newer groups were created because of different issues. And some of those issues largely died out and were replaced by others.

E.g. modern baptists sound at first glance like part of the Radical Reformation, but they combine a few emphases of it with a more conventional theology.

And if you're going to look at groups today, there's a cluster of issues such as inerrancy and a reading of the Gospel as about primarily individual salvation, and use of modern critical methods.

You can try to see various groups today as being more similar to the Magisterial or Radical Reformation, but in many cases it's a real stretch. This is particularly true because many US groups have historical connections with both.

I see. I think I was right to split the predecessor thread into two different ones.

 

[FireDragon76]

Modern Baptists here in the US and elsewhere mostly grew out of the Puritan movement in England. Baptists were essentially Calvinists that had "believer's baptism" and congregational polity.

The Anabaptist tradition is easy to see as non-theological but there are many similarities with the largely Roman Catholic Liberation Theology with its emphasis on practice over orthodoxy, and indeed, in post-Vatican II Catholicism, there are potential congruent trends between liberal Catholics and Anabaptists. Vatican II affirmed many of the things the Anabaptists fought for, such as freedom of conscience.

 

[childofdust]

To simply put; in terms of doctrines and practices, what were the differences between the Magisterials (Anglican, Calvinist, Lutheran, Zwinglian) and the Radicals (Amish, Brethren, Hutterite, Mennonite), and do those differences still exist today?

A clear example of differences in both practice and belief can be seen in a confrontation between a Hutterite (Leonhard Dax) and a Calvinist, the superintendent of the town of Alzey (Gerrit Dircks Versteghe) in AD 1567-8. What follows is a summary of the differences.

Note: these summarized responses are not two people coming together amiably and freely to discuss what they believe. The Hutterite was brought in chains to be interrogated by the Calvinist. The Calvinist used imprisonment, interrogation, and threat of execution to try to coerce the Hutterite into abandoning Anabaptism and embracing Calvinism. The Hutterite was not imprisoned for fraud or murder or abuse or for breaking any other legal stipulations. Rather, the Hutterite was imprisoned, interrogated, and threatened with death for being Anabaptist. So right away, we see a clear difference between the two groups, which will be brought up in that interrogation:

Part 1:
Calvinist: it is necessary and right that people should be imprisoned and perhaps even killed simply for having a different form of Christian faith than we do.
Hutterite: Faith cannot be coerced, it can not be imparted to infants, and it cannot be shared with heathen. It was a free choice by an individual capable of saying yes to God and no to sin.

Part 2:
Calvinist: The present-day church does not have the authority to send ministers into the whole world to preach and establish churches. That was the authority of the apostles, who were appointed by God alone. Hutterite: The true church does have the authority to send ministers into the whole world to preach and establish churches. The same Spirit that authorized then is the same Spirit that authorizes now.

Part 3:
Calvinist: If you were the true church, you would not separate from ours.
Hutterite: Because you boast of Christ with your mouth and perform heathen deeds, we have sufficient reason to separate from you and other false churches as Christ commanded.

Part 4:
Calvinist: There is nothing wrong with self-gratification through personal ownership.
Hutterite: Only if one considers oneself greater than others. If you considered yourself less than others, as Christ did, and as his church instructed, you would not amass possessions for yourself above others who need them.

Part 5:
Calvinist: Infant baptism has always been the practice of the church. It is the impartation of god's grace.
Hutterite: Infant baptism is meaningless because an infant cannot respond in faith to Christ nor renounce its sin (for it has none). Further, it is refuted by scripture.

Part 6:
Calvinist: No church exists without “blemish.” Just because our church has blemishes, that is no reason to separate from it. Christians should tolerate unrighteousness amongst them.
Hutterite: Hypocrite, were your words true, then you who think my faith blemished would tolerate me, not imprison me. If you do not repent and turn from your sin, you are lost. We will not be part of a church founded on tolerance for unrighteousness.

Part 7:
Calvinist: The government is ordained by God to impel their subjects toward proper Christian service and faith by use of force.
Hutterite: The church submits to government, but it does not compel others by force, prison, fire, water, etc. No one comes to the Father unless He draws them. Your sword can neither give nor take faith.

 

[hedrick]

A clear example of differences in both practice and belief can be seen in a confrontation between a Hutterite (Leonhard Dax) and a Calvinist, the superintendent of the town of Alzey (Gerrit Dircks Versteghe) in AD 1567-8. What follows is a summary of the differences.

'

Do you have a source? Some of the Calvinist statements seem odd.

Calvinist: it is necessary and right that people should be imprisoned and perhaps even killed simply for having a different form of Christian faith than we do.

This is surely not a quote. Perhaps that's the way the author regarded it, but it is implausible that anyone would say this.

Part 2:
Calvinist: The present-day church does not have the authority to send ministers into the whole world to preach and establish churches. That was the authority of the apostles, who were appointed by God alone.

Given that Calvinists sent people around the world to establish Calvinist churches, this seems an unlikely view.

Part 4:
Calvinist: There is nothing wrong with self-gratification through personal ownership.

Can you imagine anyone saying this? I can't.

Part 5:
Calvinist: Infant baptism has always been the practice of the church. It is the impartation of god's grace.

Any Calvinist saying this would be very confused, since "impartation of God's grace" is the Catholic view, which is certainly not accepted by Calvinists.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You can try to see various groups today as being more similar to the Magisterial or Radical Reformation, but in many cases it's a real stretch. This is particularly true because many US groups have historical connections with both.

I agree - as it can be similar to making someone biracial be identified as either being one ethnicity or another rather than seeing how both have shaped the individual...

 

[WisdomTree]

Modern Baptists here in the US and elsewhere mostly grew out of the Puritan movement in England. Baptists were essentially Calvinists that had "believer's baptism" and congregational polity.

The Anabaptist tradition is easy to see as non-theological but there are many similarities with the largely Roman Catholic Liberation Theology with its emphasis on practice over orthodoxy, and indeed, in post-Vatican II Catholicism, there are potential congruent trends between liberal Catholics and Anabaptists. Vatican II affirmed many of the things the Anabaptists fought for, such as freedom of conscience.

I thought the Baptists were founded by John Smyth while he was in the Netherlands? Was he part of the Puritan movement?

Not sure about the Anabaptist being non-theological considering they introduced several new concepts that was unheard of at the time.

 

[Merrily]

Peter Riedemann's Hutterite confession was published in 1532, quite a bit before John Smyth who possibly knew Riedemann's writings.
More here...
http://www.ephrataministries.org/pdf/2011-01-Rem-Riedemann.pdf