Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[josie_L]

I’ve just thumbed it again. There’s nothing of Chickdom at all in those 64 pages. Milder than my man Belloc. And footnotes, too…

Thank you GKC, for mentioning this (no one who is acquainted with the two could honestly/remotely suggest that they are the same).

 

[josie_L]

And while we’re at it, the Catholic Church was at least honest about their views concerning heretics, “reformers”, such as Martin Luther, claimed that what the Church believed, regarding heretics was wrong (95 theses), but then once in power proceeded to persecute (and kill) those who didn’t agree with him. In Luther’s own words:

“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their hands in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is a devil in disguise.”

More heretics/people were killed during/post “Reformation” than prior to it, coincidence, I think not.

 

[Picky_Picky]

And while we’re at it, the Catholic Church was at least honest about their views concerning heretics, “reformers”, such as Martin Luther, claimed that what the Church believed, regarding heretics was wrong (95 theses), but then once in power proceeded to persecute (and kill) those who didn’t agree with him. In Luther’s own words:

More heretics/people were killed during/post “Reformation” than prior to it, coincidence, I think not.

Could you clarify your last sentence? Do you mean more people were killed for heresy? How would you support that view, if that is your view?

 

[guanophore]

It’s called the Reformation, there is no actual scholarship that identifies it as a “revolt.” It’s something you enjoy saying, but it’s not accepted terminology.

As to magisterial teaching authority, the priesthood, and the sacraments, you still have whatever you want to have in the Catholic Church. You don’t get to make all of that be everywhere and force it on everybody, but that’s no great loss.

I agree that sacramental grace, the Petrine Gifts and the gift of the priesthood cannot be forced on anyone, but it is a great loss that Reformation communities were separated from these great resources left to us by Christ.

It’s just life. How would you possibly expect anything else? Finally, those sects that all teach something different- each and every one of them has a right to do so, free and unimpeded by violence, religious law, or religious discrimination. You can’t stop them, and you never had any right to do such a thing anyway.

While I do agree that violence is not the way of Christ, the Church has the authority and responsibilility to govern those in her care. Latin Catholics call this religious law Canon Law. Catholics agree to be bound by this Law. I am not sure what you mean by “religious discrimination” but there seemed to be plenty of it on both sides of the Reformation.

“Reformation” and “Enlightenment” are widely used and accepted terms. Whether you believe they are entirely good things is up to you, but treating these words as if they’re unacceptable for regular use is not up to you.

Again, I am wondering…have you become the standard of the acceptable use of language? I have heard the term Deformation used here at CAF as well. Is this term “unacceptable” to you, along with the word "revolt’? How is it that you get to have the authority to rule out certain words?

And I have a piece of news for you. Most Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth, but that it shouldn’t be forced on anyone against their will.

And you thought this was news why? Do you think that Jesus ever forced his Truth on anyone against their will?

Most Catholics also understand that a key outcome of the Enlightenment was that it helped the Catholic Church finally realize this.

I would love to read some more about this. Can you provide a reference? I thought hte key outcome of the Enlightenment was replacing God with Human, which eventually became Humanism.

You seem to be implying that the ends justify the means- after all, if you kill a few heretics and save countless souls why not right?

Do you have a problem with that?

Well, the reason why not is because the ends do not justify the means, and no matter how much you disagree with and hate the Reformers, none of them deserved imprisonment or death.

It is not fair for us to look back from our 21st century viewpoint and judge the actions of those involved, who were all products of their time and culture. At that time, Christianity had been the religion of the State for over 1000 years, so heresy was treated like treason.

Did Aquinas completely overlook that foundation when he was writing Article 3 concerning the question of heresy? newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

Do you think he is promoting an evil so that a greater good can come of it?

 

[guanophore]

I can tell you the answer to that. The Catholic Church would have reformed itself with “all due speed” per its own judgment, in the same sense that Alabama and Mississippi chose to racially integrate public schools at whatever speed they felt was best.

People are creatures of habit and do not like change. Certainly the Bishops of Europe, most of whom were quite powerful and wealthy, were not eager to give up their estates and status. Did the rebellion that occurred at the Reformation precipitate and speed change? Absolutely.

Men are always in need of Reform. The doctrines of Christ are never in need of reform.

I do take offense.

So it would seem.

… because the thing you like to say is offensive. There are very good reasons why your favored term is and always has been completely out of favor with actual historical and religious scholarship. It’s a deliberately offensive term, it has no place in serious conversation, and I think you know it. Of course you may use it as you like, and you can go ahead and be offensive as much as you want. Just know what you’re doing, okay?

What is it that is offensive? Why would it matter to you that Catholics see the departure from the Teachings of the Apostles as deforming in nature?

I have a very honest question about this issue. Are you (or any source you can lay hands on) able to address the matter of countries like Russia and Spain, which each became incredibly secular in their own right despite each of them remaining staunchly unaffected by the Reformation, each in its own way? It would seem that non-Reformation forces have been hard at work in these countries, and perhaps those forces are always responsible for anti-religious secularism but then sometimes the blame is shifted to the very-religious Reformers.

I think the religious reformers were just a small pebble in a huge avalanche of change that was long overdue. Those secular forces took advantage of the religious dissent to break away from the secular power of Rome. There is plenty of “blame” to go around. If the Bishops had been shepherding the flocks instead of lining their own pockets, a revolt may never have been necessary.

And just one more…

And it is their God-given right to do so.

God did not give us free will for the purpose of departing from His will. This is not “right” but license. He gave us free will so that we could choose to be with him. Jettisoning what He taught the Apostles is not His perfect will for our lives.

 

[GKC]

Thank you GKC, for mentioning this (no one who is acquainted with the two could honestly/remotely suggest that they are the same).

My library contains no examples of the Chicklet Papers, at this time, though a dozen examples or so have passed through my hands over the years. Usually found under my car windshield wiper, or in a stall in a public restroom. They would take up only a little shelf space, but somehow they didn’t. Funny little things.

You’re welcome. Let us suspect that the comparison was hyperbole.

 

[josie_L]

Could you clarify your last sentence? Do you mean more people were killed for heresy? How would you support that view, if that is your view?

Yes, that is what I’m saying, and I support my view based on the religious wars, revolts, revolutions that transpired during and after the “Reformation” (so many countries were embroiled in some sort of religious persecution/revolt wherein thousands were killed).

Things did not get better as a result of the “Reformation”.

 

[josie_L]

My library contains no examples of the Chicklet Papers, at this time, though a dozen examples or so have passed through my hands over the years. Usually found under my car windshield wiper, or in a stall in a public restroom. They would take up only a little shelf space, but somehow they didn’t. Funny little things.

You’re welcome. Let us suspect that the comparison was hyperbole.

 

[Duane1966]

Personally, when I use the term revolt (and when I see it used in ways that are readily accepted by all), it tends to be fairly exclusive to rebellions and uprising against a state, or some other kind of actual ruler. I can certainly see why you’d be inclined to make comparisons and transfer terms so that it encompasses this type of thing too, but I’ll maintain that “revolt” is a term that most readily belongs to questions of loyalty to one’s government rather than one’s religion.

One of the definitions of revolt:

an attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or body by rebelling.

It was clearly a revolt against the way the Church governed.

Really? Even the parts where he says that heresy should be punishable by death?

The following answer is taken from the Thomistic Philosophy Page found here: aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html

First of all, we must closely examine Thomas’ actual words. He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished. Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society. Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers. In medieval society, however, many lesser crimes were punishable by death. Heresy, which endangers a person’s eternal salvation, surely is a greater evil than forgery. Furthermore, Thomas reserves the execution of heretics to the secular authority. Today, with our total separation of Church and State, the secular authority would have no concern with heretics. Perhaps, medieval society, which was based on the divine right of kings, or England under Henry VIII, would be threatened politically by religious dissenters. Our own society would experience no such threat. Thomas’ seeming intolerance to heresy, a matter of faith, is simply irrelevent in a liberal democracy.

If, however, we examine the Thomistic doctrine on the death penalty in general, we can see that he only favors it when the common good is in immediate danger:

Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.... (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2)

In the same place, however, Thomas adds that evil-doers should be tolerated if their destruction would harm the virtuous:

Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.(Ibid., ad. 1)

Thomas advocates tolerance of the rites of unbelievers and even of such evils as prostitution. Moreover, the Thomistic theory of free will and the relationship of God to the free choices of man provides an even stronger basis for toleration.

But he did not say this was a bad way of doing things. In fact, he said “Good job you lawmakers who greenlight the capital punishment of heretics. In fact, you are being more merciful than you really need to be, because in my expert opinion you could be swifter, harsher, and more consistently deadly with your punishments and that would be absolutely fine with me, with God, and with all that God has revealed to us.” Then he answers multiple objections to his conclusions and reaffirms his position.

Can you give me a link to the part I put in bold where Thomas said what you state he said?

You’re absolutely sure you don’t see anything wrong with this picture? Something along the lines of “He reached the wrong conclusion despite being extremely well positioned to reach the right one”?

Positive, nothing wrong with this picture, for the reason given.

Looking back through the lenses of history is certainly helpful, but looking right in front of you through the lenses of “I’m the pre-eminent theorist on natural law, whose main function is to make exactly these kinds of calls and do it correctly” should, could, and pretty well ought to have been sufficient.

I can see you thinking that way about yourself, but I am sure Thomas did not think of himself that way. But he got it right.

And he went on to say that if you were to do anything differently, you could go ahead and have him killed after the first offense, because that in his opinion would also be justified. He nudged this in exactly the wrong direction!

Where does he say after the first offense?

Again the scenario that Thomas is replying to is this: Is it okay for a government to kill a criminal, if by sparing the criminal’s life tremendous harm to the common good will result?

Is it okay for a government to kill a heretic, if by sparing the heretic’s life tremendous harm to the common good will result?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes, that is what I’m saying, and I support my view based on the religious wars, revolts, revolutions that transpired during and after the “Reformation” (so many countries were embroiled in some sort of religious persecution/revolt wherein thousands were killed).

Things did not get better as a result of the “Reformation”.

Religious wars, revolts and revolutions — yes, if you are not just saying people killed for heresy in a narrower sense, fair enough. Certainly the 30 years’ war took some beating. The Crusades might come in winners in the death stakes, perhaps, but I’m not sure it would be in the best taste for me to argue about it. The Reformation was trigger for some awful violence, that"s for sure.

 

[josie_L]

Religious wars, revolts and revolutions — yes, if you are not just saying people killed for heresy in a narrower sense, fair enough. Certainly the 30 years’ war took some beating. The Crusades might come in winners in the death stakes, perhaps, but I’m not sure it would be in the best taste for me to argue about it. The Reformation was trigger for some awful violence, that"s for sure.

In the Crusades, we were fighting the non-believers (not heretics), i.e., Muslims (more than 400 years of expansionism into Christian and Pagan territories later), although, yes, the 4th Crusade and some smaller incidents throughout resulted in the death of Christians and Jews alike, I still believe that the Crusades were justified (it was that or continually be beset by Islamic expansionism/persecution).

p.s. As you yourself state the “Reformation” triggered some awful violence/persecution, ones, which could have been avoided were it not for the greed and political machinations of many involved.

 

[Emjay66]

As a slight aside I would that that one positive outcome of the Reformation was the widespread opening up of Europe to new ways of thinking. And that was probably necessary for the Enlightenment to take hold and for modern science to develop.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you have a problem with that?

Early in February 1527, in the district ofKönigsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory, where the movement gained an early foothold through the efforts ofHans Hut, Volk Kolerlin, and other Anabaptist apostles, the first Anabaptists were seized. On 26 February 1527, the elector issued the public order, “that no one, be he citizen, peasant, or anyone else, except the regular clergyman, preacher, and chaplain, to whom pastoral care is entrusted and who is qualified at each place is permitted to preach, baptize, or exercise other similar offices in his house or other places owned by him.” Soon afterward he had the Königsberg citizens,Beutelhans,Wolf Schominger(Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman put to death as Anabaptists… . .

The Saxon reformers approved of the elector’s violent measures, so that on 23 April 1529, at Speyer he could without qualms of conscience give his consent to the well-known Anabaptist mandate (see Punishment of the Anabaptists) and henceforth strove to act in accord with it.

In 1529 ten Anabaptists were imprisoned atReinhardsbrunn, and the six who remained steadfast were put to death on 18 January 1530, causing great excitement among the people. The reformers now found it advisable to formulate a vindication of the right to punish heretics. To this end Justus Menius, the superintendent of Eisenach, wroteDer Widdertauffer lere und geheimnis aus heiliger Schrjft widderlegt, with a preface byLutherand a dedication toPhilipp of Hesse(who, they were convinced, was too lenient), dated 4 May 1530; andMelanchthondrew up a formal opinion addressed to the elector of Saxony at the end of November 1531.

In a long-drawn-out dispute with Philipp concerning the penalizing of several Anabaptists in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse, the elector insisted on their execution. In the end the prisoners were divided between Saxony and Hesse. Of those allotted to the elector at least three were put to death:*Berlet Schmidt,Hans Eisfart, and his wife. Later he also insisted upon the execution of the Anabaptist leaders,Melchior RinckandFritz Erbe, who were held by Philipp. They died in prison.

In Schweinitz near Wittenberg death in prison terminated the many cross-examinations and long martyrdom of Hans Sturm of Steyer, though he had neither preached nor baptized in Saxony. His countrymanPeter PestelofLinz, also a victim of the intolerance of the Wittenberg theologians and jurists, was beheaded on Friday after Corpus Christi at Zwickau in 1536.

After the fall ofMünsterin 1535 the elector’s severe attitude was, of course, sharpened. On 21 November 1535, Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf near Orlamünde was arrested in his own house with his sixteen-year-old daughter Margarethe and fourteen others; he was taken to the Leuchtenburg, and after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, put to death withHeinz Kraut andJobst MöllerinJenaat the end of January 1536. Of the four prisoners who were transferred to Neustadt an der Orla because of lack of prison space in the Leuchtenburg, Heinrich Möller sealed his faith with his death.

On 10 April 1536, a new mandate was issued in Saxony against the “Anabaptists, Sacramentists, and fanatics,” which was composed by Melanchthon, and also a polemic from the same pen,Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel, welche die Wiederteuffer furgeben, which every pastor in Saxony had to read and explain to his congregation on each third Sunday.

In January 1538 the elector had two men executed who were caught conversing withFritz Erbein the tower of the city wall of Eisenach, and who persisted in their faith in spite of all efforts to convert them. They wereHans Köhlerof Eyerode andHans Schefferof Hastungsfelde. Other admirers of Erbe recanted on the rack.*

In the territory ofMühlhausen, an imperial city, where after thePeasants’ Warin 1525 theDuke of Saxonyhad the protective magistracy every third year alternating with the elector of Saxony and the langrave of Hesse,Georg KöhlerandKlaus Ernfartwere among those who suffered death. A large number of Anabaptists were drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern and buried on the bank; among these wereJakob StorgerandKlaus Scharfbesides eight women on 8 November 1537, andHans Hentrockof Amra andOttilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, on 17 January 1538.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you have a problem with that?

There’s more:

Early in February 1527, in the district ofKönigsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory, where the movement gained an early foothold through the efforts ofHans Hut, Volk Kolerlin, and other Anabaptist apostles, the first Anabaptists were seized. On 26 February 1527, the elector issued the public order, “that no one, be he citizen, peasant, or anyone else, except the regular clergyman, preacher, and chaplain, to whom pastoral care is entrusted and who is qualified at each place is permitted to preach, baptize, or exercise other similar offices in his house or other places owned by him.” Soon afterward he had the Königsberg citizens,Beutelhans,Wolf Schominger(Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman put to death as Anabaptists… . .

The Saxon reformers approved of the elector’s violent measures, so that on 23 April 1529, at Speyer he could without qualms of conscience give his consent to the well-known Anabaptist mandate (see Punishment of the Anabaptists) and henceforth strove to act in accord with it.

In 1529 ten Anabaptists were imprisoned atReinhardsbrunn, and the six who remained steadfast were put to death on 18 January 1530, causing great excitement among the people. The reformers now found it advisable to formulate a vindication of the right to punish heretics. To this end Justus Menius, the superintendent of Eisenach, wroteDer Widdertauffer lere und geheimnis aus heiliger Schrjft widderlegt, with a preface byLutherand a dedication toPhilipp of Hesse(who, they were convinced, was too lenient), dated 4 May 1530; andMelanchthondrew up a formal opinion addressed to the elector of Saxony at the end of November 1531.

In a long-drawn-out dispute with Philipp concerning the penalizing of several Anabaptists in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse, the elector insisted on their execution. In the end the prisoners were divided between Saxony and Hesse. Of those allotted to the elector at least three were put to death:*Berlet Schmidt,Hans Eisfart, and his wife. Later he also insisted upon the execution of the Anabaptist leaders,Melchior RinckandFritz Erbe, who were held by Philipp. They died in prison.

In Schweinitz near Wittenberg death in prison terminated the many cross-examinations and long martyrdom of Hans Sturm of Steyer, though he had neither preached nor baptized in Saxony. His countrymanPeter PestelofLinz, also a victim of the intolerance of the Wittenberg theologians and jurists, was beheaded on Friday after Corpus Christi at Zwickau in 1536.

After the fall ofMünsterin 1535 the elector’s severe attitude was, of course, sharpened. On 21 November 1535, Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf near Orlamünde was arrested in his own house with his sixteen-year-old daughter Margarethe and fourteen others; he was taken to the Leuchtenburg, and after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, put to death withHeinz Kraut andJobst MöllerinJenaat the end of January 1536. Of the four prisoners who were transferred to Neustadt an der Orla because of lack of prison space in the Leuchtenburg, Heinrich Möller sealed his faith with his death.

On 10 April 1536, a new mandate was issued in Saxony against the “Anabaptists, Sacramentists, and fanatics,” which was composed by Melanchthon, and also a polemic from the same pen,Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel, welche die Wiederteuffer furgeben, which every pastor in Saxony had to read and explain to his congregation on each third Sunday.

In January 1538 the elector had two men executed who were caught conversing withFritz Erbein the tower of the city wall of Eisenach, and who persisted in their faith in spite of all efforts to convert them. They wereHans Köhlerof Eyerode andHans Schefferof Hastungsfelde. Other admirers of Erbe recanted on the rack.*

In the territory ofMühlhausen, an imperial city, where after thePeasants’ Warin 1525 theDuke of Saxonyhad the protective magistracy every third year alternating with the elector of Saxony and the langrave of Hesse,Georg KöhlerandKlaus Ernfartwere among those who suffered death. A large number of Anabaptists were drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern and buried on the bank; among these wereJakob StorgerandKlaus Scharfbesides eight women on 8 November 1537, andHans Hentrockof Amra andOttilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, on 17 January 1538.

 

[Wannano]

Do you have a problem with that?

When I first read this I have to admit I was stunned because it didn’t seem like something I would expect you to say. After reading the article about Calvin I think I now know what you are reflecting back to the other poster.

It is interesting how all Christians have to concede that the way of Christ did not include violence. Really that was one of the central tenets of His teaching. It is one of the teachings we find too hard to accept so Christendom has been very adept to side step the priciple in an effort to justify the concept of Church authority and responsibility to govern the Church. It so interests me that in the article you used to point out who Calvin really was points out that the given philosophy was established by the conversion of Constantine and how he was able to tie church and state together. The Catholic Church has taken his sign as a message from God. The union of church and state that intituted practices which were and are in conflict with the teachings of Christ is unfortunate. This I believe in simple terms set the stage for corruption and gave a platform for men like Calvin centuries later.

From what I read there were people who quietly existed all through from the time of Constantine who were martyred for their own belief that did not give obedience to the state church.

 

[rcwitness]

guanophore;13859976:

From what I read there were people who quietly existed all through from the time of Constantine who were martyred for their own belief that did not give obedience to the state church.

Hey bro,

This raises some ?'s…

Do you believe the Reformation had separation of Church and State as a goal?

Are you suggesting Christians were killed for defying the Bishop of Rome?

What Church are you referring to?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano;13861825:

Hey bro,

This raises some ?'s…

Do you believe the Reformation had separation of Church and State as a goal?

Are you suggesting Christians were killed for defying the Bishop of Rome?

What Church are you referring to?

I am on time constraint right now…give me a pm and we will go from there.

 

[Wannano]

There’s more:

Early in February 1527, in the district ofKönigsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory, where the movement gained an early foothold through the efforts ofHans Hut, Volk Kolerlin, and other Anabaptist apostles, the first Anabaptists were seized. On 26 February 1527, the elector issued the public order, “that no one, be he citizen, peasant, or anyone else, except the regular clergyman, preacher, and chaplain, to whom pastoral care is entrusted and who is qualified at each place is permitted to preach, baptize, or exercise other similar offices in his house or other places owned by him.” Soon afterward he had the Königsberg citizens,Beutelhans,Wolf Schominger(Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman put to death as Anabaptists… . .

The Saxon reformers approved of the elector’s violent measures, so that on 23 April 1529, at Speyer he could without qualms of conscience give his consent to the well-known Anabaptist mandate (see Punishment of the Anabaptists) and henceforth strove to act in accord with it.

In 1529 ten Anabaptists were imprisoned atReinhardsbrunn, and the six who remained steadfast were put to death on 18 January 1530, causing great excitement among the people. The reformers now found it advisable to formulate a vindication of the right to punish heretics. To this end Justus Menius, the superintendent of Eisenach, wroteDer Widdertauffer lere und geheimnis aus heiliger Schrjft widderlegt, with a preface byLutherand a dedication toPhilipp of Hesse(who, they were convinced, was too lenient), dated 4 May 1530; andMelanchthondrew up a formal opinion addressed to the elector of Saxony at the end of November 1531.

In a long-drawn-out dispute with Philipp concerning the penalizing of several Anabaptists in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse, the elector insisted on their execution. In the end the prisoners were divided between Saxony and Hesse. Of those allotted to the elector at least three were put to death:*Berlet Schmidt,Hans Eisfart, and his wife. Later he also insisted upon the execution of the Anabaptist leaders,Melchior RinckandFritz Erbe, who were held by Philipp. They died in prison.

In Schweinitz near Wittenberg death in prison terminated the many cross-examinations and long martyrdom of Hans Sturm of Steyer, though he had neither preached nor baptized in Saxony. His countrymanPeter PestelofLinz, also a victim of the intolerance of the Wittenberg theologians and jurists, was beheaded on Friday after Corpus Christi at Zwickau in 1536.

After the fall ofMünsterin 1535 the elector’s severe attitude was, of course, sharpened. On 21 November 1535, Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf near Orlamünde was arrested in his own house with his sixteen-year-old daughter Margarethe and fourteen others; he was taken to the Leuchtenburg, and after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, put to death withHeinz Kraut andJobst MöllerinJenaat the end of January 1536. Of the four prisoners who were transferred to Neustadt an der Orla because of lack of prison space in the Leuchtenburg, Heinrich Möller sealed his faith with his death.

On 10 April 1536, a new mandate was issued in Saxony against the “Anabaptists, Sacramentists, and fanatics,” which was composed by Melanchthon, and also a polemic from the same pen,Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel, welche die Wiederteuffer furgeben, which every pastor in Saxony had to read and explain to his congregation on each third Sunday.

In January 1538 the elector had two men executed who were caught conversing withFritz Erbein the tower of the city wall of Eisenach, and who persisted in their faith in spite of all efforts to convert them. They wereHans Köhlerof Eyerode andHans Schefferof Hastungsfelde. Other admirers of Erbe recanted on the rack.*

In the territory ofMühlhausen, an imperial city, where after thePeasants’ Warin 1525 theDuke of Saxonyhad the protective magistracy every third year alternating with the elector of Saxony and the langrave of Hesse,Georg KöhlerandKlaus Ernfartwere among those who suffered death. A large number of Anabaptists were drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern and buried on the bank; among these wereJakob StorgerandKlaus Scharfbesides eight women on 8 November 1537, andHans Hentrockof Amra andOttilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, on 17 January 1538.

I found a quick 10 minutes here so can I ask you a quick question? You responded to Guan with the above article. How does it relate to Guan’s statement and /or the article he link3d to about Calvin? Will help me answer some of your other questions.

 

[guanophore]

There’s more:

How about posting your source?

 

[guanophore]

It is interesting how all Christians have to concede that the way of Christ did not include violence. Really that was one of the central tenets of His teaching. It is one of the teachings we find too hard to accept so Christendom has been very adept to side step the priciple in an effort to justify the concept of Church authority and responsibility to govern the Church. It so interests me that in the article you used to point out who Calvin really was points out that the given philosophy was established by the conversion of Constantine and how he was able to tie church and state together. The Catholic Church has taken his sign as a message from God. The union of church and state that intituted practices which were and are in conflict with the teachings of Christ is unfortunate. This I believe in simple terms set the stage for corruption and gave a platform for men like Calvin centuries later.

From what I read there were people who quietly existed all through from the time of Constantine who were martyred for their own belief that did not give obedience to the state church.

I agree with you 100%, that Jesus never intended for His Kingdom to be “of this world” and conflating the two is what set the stage for the Protestant Revolt.

I think it was about 300 years after Contantine, though, when the Seat of the Roman Empire removed to Constantinople, and the Roman Pontiff was left with secular authority in the East.