Immutable Kingdom – Part 35

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 35

By Scott A. Klaft

England’s Break with the Pope

The conflict between King Henry VIII and the papacy actually began with his father, Henry VII, who had two sons. The elder son, Arthur, was married to Catherine of Aragon while still a boy, who then died before the marriage could be consummated. Not wanting to return Catherine with her dowry back to Spain, the king petitioned the Pope to allow his younger son, Henry to be married to Catherine. Pope Julius II investigated, and then granted, the petition in 1504. Henry was never fond of Catherine, but he was pressured by political reasons to continue in the marriage contract. In eighteen years, they managed to have seven children together, but only one lived past infancy, Mary.

When the proposed marriage of Mary to a French prince was thwarted because Henry’s marriage to his “sister-in-law” was called into question, Henry determined to divorce Catherine. He appealed to Pope Clement VII in 1527 to annul the marriage, a marriage he claimed Julius wrongly approved. Clement agreed with Julius’ decision, and he refused to grant the request. The Emperor of the ‘Holy Roman Empire’ at the time, Charles V, was a nephew of Catherine, and he pressed the Pope heavily to decide in her favor.

When the Pope refused to grant the annulment or a divorce, Henry broke with the Pope, appointing himself head of the Church of England. Thomas Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533, and immediately he declared Catherine’s marriage to Henry void, simultaneously pronouncing Henry’s marriage to Ann Boleyn (which had occurred three months earlier) legal. Many of the English priests went along with Henry because they thought it was a temporary political step, but in 1534, the parliament made Henry “Supreme Head” of the Church of England, approving the succession of Ann’s children to the throne, as well as requiring all citizens of the kingdom to swear fidelity to Ann’s children. When Sir Thomas Moore and Bishop Fisher refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the divorce, they were both executed.

The Pope naturally excommunicated Henry, imposing the interdict upon England, but these previously formidable weapons had lost their power against the English people. The clergy had been abusing their privileges for too long, and the people were tired of papal taxation. The priests went along with Henry that they may be relieved of the excessive fees required by Rome and the financial obligations of the Pope’s assistants. Many were supporting Henry in eagerness in hope of making the type of gains in wealth once acquired by the clergy.

The authority given to Henry as Supreme Head of the Church of England had to do with jurisdiction only and not the powers of ordination. The “religious consulting assembly” would pass their decisions concerning the church to the parliament who, if they agreed, passed them on to Henry for ratification. In justifying the break from Romanism, parliament insisted they were not establishing a new president but were restoring the rights and privileges once held in England concerning self-government within the Church of England. Parliament declared that the Pope had usurped these rights and that there was no law, decree, or statute on record in all of English history giving authority to the Pope; and, therefore he never had any legal position of authority to the English Church.

Due to Henry retaining and enforcing much of the Catholic doctrines, biblical reformers were discouraged and fled to the European continent. It was clear Henry intended no real reformation. The Bibles printed by Tyndale on the continent and smuggled into England were zealously collected and burned in the name of the king, and Tyndale himself was persecuted and driven out of England. He was later captured in the Netherlands and burned at the stake in 1536. It is reported that Tyndale’s last words were in prayer that the Lord would “open the eyes of the king of England.”

(Next week: The Changing of the Guard)

Immutable Kingdom – Part 34

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 34

By Scott A. Klaft

The Sects of the Anabaptist Movement

Examining the teachings of the Anabaptists, Meno Simons determined to turn away from the Catholic priesthood and become associated with the movement. Because of the universal hostility to “Anabaptists,” this group simply called themselves “Brethren,” but later took the name of their leader as Mennonites. Meno believed he was called of God to protect the movement from radicals after the tragic horrors in the city of Munster. He began to work with small groups to increase their understanding of scripture, emphasizing church membership based on personal conviction and attained by adult baptism.

Meno taught several influential doctrines. He said Christians should never hold civil office, nor bear arms. He taught obedience to the State as long as its demands did not oppose God’s requirements, but the secular rulers should not have control over religious matters.

The quiet influence of this particular Anabaptist group spread quickly through various means. Some of the Dutch Anabaptists moved to America and established Mennonite churches there. Many English Protestants came in contact with them in Holland, and then returned to England to establish this new type of congregational worship.

By 1611, there were several Anabaptist congregations in England; but, working independently, they adopted the name “Baptists.” The second generation of these reformers had not received a “baptism” as children; and, as a denial that they had been baptized twice, they refused the name Anabaptist. There were several influenced by Meno’s teachings in Germany, taking the names “Dunkards” or “Trunkards”. Some of these came to America teaching a “triune-immersion” and foot washing. The Quakers, Mennonites, Dunkards, and Baptists all had their origination out of the Anabaptist movement.

Progressions in France

Being very dissatisfied with Catholic corruption, the upper middle class in France almost unanimously adopted some type of reform teachings. The number under the influence of John Calvin in France was close to three hundred thousand or more. Luther’s influence also remained very strong in France. In 1559, the first national assembly of Protestants was held in Paris where the “Gallican Confession of Faith” was adopted, and the name Huguenots was applied. The government of France, however, was under the dominance of the Catholic Hierarchy; and, by this year, began to take measures to halt Protestant growth. By 1597, there had been eight civil wars in France as the result of these religious differences.

Preparing for the Church of England

There were many factors preparing the people of England to reform. There was an increase of interest in the Humanities, and in education in the Greek classic writings. There were tremendous contributions toward a classless society in the writings of Sir Thomas Moore, which, when coupled with the translations of the New Testament by Wycliffe and Tyndale, conditioned England to make a break with the papacy. The break with the Pope, however, was not brought about by the common people but by the crown.

Henry VIII considered himself a competent theologian, and he unquestioningly accepted the Catholic teachings. He tolerated the reformation movements in England to exert political pressure on the hierarchy, but even after the split from the Pope, the Church of England retained the traditional sacraments and ceremonies of the Catholic Church.

(Next Week: England’s Break with the Pope)

Immutable Kingdom – Part 33

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 33
By Scott A. Klaft

(Anabaptists, continued)

Without a general organization, “the Anabaptists” had a wide variety of beliefs within their ranks. Each local congregation conducted its own business affairs, selecting their own officers and leaders. Certain Anabaptists went beyond the limits of the Bible, relying upon what they called an “inner light,” and believing the Holy Spirit would work apart from the teachings of the Bible to bring them to the truth. Most Anabaptists rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, believing in the free will of man. A smaller, radical group insisted they knew Jesus was about to return, claiming specific times and places for the occurrence. An even smaller portion of that same group practiced communal living (where the whole community had ownership of all goods), and even practiced polygamy.

The Anabaptist movement did not have one particular man to whom they all looked for leadership, but rather a good number of highly trained men who accepted their teachings, in part or in whole.

Conrad Grebel (1498 – 1526) first worked with Zwingli, but when Zwingli wavered on the issue of infant baptism, Grebel parted ways with him. Holding a public debate together, Zwingli did poorly, but the town council was persuaded to unite against Grebel and the Anabaptists.

Felix Manz (1498 – 1527), who had gained a large following, collaborated with Grebel, but in 1526, the town council had decided the best way to deal with the Anabaptists was to drown them. Many fled the city.

Balthasar Hubmaier (1480? – 1528), was a professor of theology who parted with the German reformers, believing they were not going far enough. He moved to Switzerland to support Zwingli. As with Grebel, the two disagreed, and Hubmaier became closely associated with the Anabaptists. Having already done significant work in Germany, he drew more attention to himself; and, by imperial command, he was captured, and burned at the stake on March 10, 1528. His wife was then taken by the Roman Catholic leadership and forcibly drowned.

Two more German-reformers overreacted to yet another extreme, believing Luther was not going far enough concerning the emphasis of the Holy Spirit working directly on the heart. While these were not exactly Anabaptists, they were severely persecuted along with them; and so they packed and moved together to Pennsylvania, in America. They were excellent farmers, reputable citizens, and even today remain an independent “charismatic” religious movement, though far more widespread.

Another radical wing of the Anabaptists was a group who taught Christ would return to the city of Strassbourg to establish the “millennial reign” in 1533. Another taught it would be the city of Munster. When Christ did not come to Strassbourg as predicted, Munster became the focus of this movement. In his attempt to take over the city by force, the leader was killed and succeeded by another man, who promptly married the former leader’s widow, along with sixteen other women. These Anabaptists approved polygamy because there were so many more unmarried women than men in Munster. Quickly obtaining control, the Anabaptists forced all dissenters out of the city. The new leader of this millennial movement proclaimed himself king of the city until Christ returned to take over.

Under these extremist conditions, the Protestants and the Catholics united with the intention of stamping out the Anabaptists. The city was overrun, and the people were ruthlessly murdered in 1536. Anabaptists everywhere were drowned or executed in horrible ways. It appeared that the entire movement was doomed until one man, through careful conduct, and a more intelligent approach to scripture, saved the movement. He was a former Catholic Priest named Meno Simons.

(Next week: The Sects of the Anabaptist Movement)

Immutable Kingdom – Part 32

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 32

By Scott A. Klaft

Calvinism vs. Armenianism

While John Calvin was promoting his doctrine of unconditional election and irresistible grace, a professor at the University of Leyden, Jacob Arminius (1560 – 1609) saw this as a travesty of justice. He was outraged that anyone would charge God with such evil.

The Calvinists held that since God decreed it to be so, it was just. No matter what, the elected person would still be saved by God’s irresistible grace. In our modern times, this is commonly called the “Once saved, always saved” doctrine. Arminius taught that God would only do right, and is thereby restricted by His very nature to do only justice. He insisted on the free moral agency of mankind, and that anyone who sincerely desired salvation may freely come to God. Adversely, he taught that he who disregards the commands of God and receives condemnation, does so of his own free will. He also taught that God has the foreknowledge to know that men would sin by the exercise of free will, but that God does not coerce, predestine, or will it to be so. This is also taught in modern times, and it is summed up in the saying, “Foreknowledge is not causation.” His emphasis was that man’s freedom stands in contrast to theistic compulsion (or, necessity) reasoning that there must be freedom whenever there is an option of alternate choices.

The Calvinists stood by their doctrine that salvation is not achievable by human endeavor. Those elected to salvation could never fall, and those predestined for hell could never ascend from that pit. Arminius held that God’s grace is not irresistible, but rather generously offered to those who would come to Him. If one desired the help of Christ, and actively does His will, God keeps him from falling. Christ would not hold one captive, however, if they refuse. This conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism continues to this very day in one form or another.

Other Reform Movements

As seems so typical of human societies, there were also extremists among the reform movements of Luther and Zwingli. While Luther insisted upon eliminating only that which the Bible specifically condemned, certain of his followers thought this did not go far enough and broke with the Lutheran movement. While Zwingli would allow only that which the Bible authorizes, certain of his number thought this too restrictive and broke with his followers. Thus it would be with all religious associations, again, to this day.

Anabaptists

Some of the more radical reformers became known as Anabaptists, a name which suggests one baptism atop another. This was applied to them because of their rejection of the practice of infant baptism, and their contention that baptism is only valid to one who is capable of believing, and who voluntarily submits to the rite of baptism. Some of these groups were very close to the New Testament pattern, and others were vastly more radical, but all of the Anabaptists were persecuted as heretics by the followers of Luther and Zwingli, as well as the Catholics.

Believing that the church was only made up of believers, and that infant baptism was the invention of men, they still had not come to an agreement on the mode of baptism. Sprinkling was a common practice even in 1525, but it was not long before they generally rejected the practice in favor of immersion.

As fervently as they opposed the papacy, the Anabaptists believed in ridged church discipline, and that there should be a solid division between church and state. Most insisted upon the liberty of the conscience for all members, but some became overly intolerant of those who differed with their own ideas.

(Continued Next Week)

Immutable Kingdom – Part 31

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 31

By Scott A. Klaft

(The Rise of Calvinism continued)

John Calvin was encouraged by a fellow preacher to bring his reformation principles to a large city in Switzerland called Geneva. After two years of diligent efforts to convert the city, the town council flatly refused to reform, and Calvin left the city. He had stirred up so many and created such interest, however, the council was compelled to call him back three years later.

In 1541, the town council turned the entire city over to Calvin’s rule, making him the dictator of the city. As such, Calvin demanded complete conformity, and he brought force to bear against any dissenters. For example, a doctor of theology named Servetus had written a treatise on the Trinity. Calvin sharply disagreed with the content of the book and so arrested, tried, and burned him at the stake in 1553.

So well organized was Calvin’s design for the City government that he managed to institute an extremely functional and smoothly operated spy network. Those appointed to be religious leaders could pronounce an excommunication on those who disagreed with Calvin’s theological views, and the secular rulers would carry it out.

In a four-year period under Calvin’s rule, there were fifty-seven executions and seventy-six banishments from the city, not for violent crimes, but for what Calvin and the council considered to be heresy. The lives of the citizenry of Geneva were sharply regulated. Laws were instituted against swearing, and the innkeepers were required to report any offenses. The inns were also required to keep a Bible on hand. They were never to allow dice, cards, or any form of gambling. Indecent songs were universally banned, and no one was allowed to leave their homes after nine o’clock at night, excepting, of course, the spies.

In many respects, Calvin agreed with the principles of Zwingli, believing the Bible to be the infallible guide for the church. On the other hand, Calvin departed from Zwingli in that he believed the Bible could only be properly interpreted by the “special elect.” To facilitate his Reformation ideals, Calvin established a college, which became so popular that students from all over Western Europe came to study; and, upon returning to their homes, they would spread the teachings of Calvinism.

The basis of the largest part of his theology centered on the teaching of Augustine, that the will of man is inherently depraved, sinful, and wicked. The five main points of Calvinism is summed up in the acrostic: “T.U.L.I.P.” “T” – stands for Total hereditary depravity. “U” – stands for Unconditional election. “L” – stands for Limited atonement. “I” stands for Irresistible grace. “P” – stands for Perseverance of the saints. These teachings are so contrary to the true doctrine taught in the scripture it would reach far beyond the scope of this series to address them.

Being physically weak already, Calvin’s strenuous responsibilities brought his death in 1564. Considering Calvin’s numerous doctrinal errors, it is regrettable that Calvin had influenced the world of religion for such a long period of time. We should not be overly harsh in our retrospective judgment of John Calvin, however. He was, after all, a product of his age and time, and considering the handicaps under which he labored, we should include him in the number of great reformers. He did manage to expose many of the deeply entrenched errors of the Catholic Church, and through his efforts, coupled with Luther and Zwingli’s work, we in the present day have a clearer understanding of true New Testament Christianity.

(Next week: Calvinism Vs Armenianism – & – Simultaneous Reform Movements)