Home       Bibelkreis.ch

Frage: 1504         Aufklärung über Martin Luther:   DIE REFORMATION IN DER FRANZÖSISCHEN SCHWEIZ

Lieber Hans Peter,

die Protestanten behaupten natürlich, die Täufer gäbe als "Ketzer" erst seit der Reformation.
Aber er muss sich ja wohl bis zu den Aposteln zurückziehen lassen. Weisst Du näheres über die vorreformatorische Zeit?

Martin


Lieber Martin   11.05.04

Ich habe den Will Durant und Andrew Miller gelesen. Aber das alles hat mich nicht zu dem Punkt gebracht wo ich heute bin. Wenn jemand jemand umbringen lässt, weil er eine 
andere Lehre (Glaubenstaufe),
Abstammung (Juden) oder
Lebensweise (Zigeuner) und
Beruf (Bauern), ist oder hat,  dann ist er kein Christ.
Darum glaube  ich, dass Luther von Beruf ein Theoworkoholic  und in seinem  Herzen  ein Böser war.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Hans Peter


 
Seit wann gibt es die Täufer ?
 
A) Die Täufer gibt es schon im Neuen Testament:
 
a) Johannes der Täufer, taufte ja nur Menschen, die ihre Sünden bekannten:

Mt 3:5-6 Da zog zu ihm hinaus Jerusalem und ganz Judäa und die ganze umliegende Landschaft des Jordan, 6 und es wurden von ihm getauft im Jordan, die ihre Sünden bekannten.

Er taufte ja im Jordan per "baptisma", d.h. wörtlich durch Eintauchen in eine Flüssigkeit (=Wasser). Hätte Johannes a la Säuglingsbesprengung getauft, würde dort ein völlig anderes Wort stehen (rantizo) und die Bemerkung, dass viel Wasser nötig war (Joh 3,23) wäre sinnlos. Das Wort für Taufen (baptizo) ist ein Intensivum von bapto (tunken/tauchen: Lk. 16:24; Joh 13:26; Offb 19:13) und zeigt das aktive Hineinbringen in eine Flüssigkeit an. Jesus selbst wurde durch Untertauchen und nicht per Besprengung getauft:  Mk 1:10 "Und alsbald, da er [Anm.: Jesus Christus] aus dem Wasser stieg. "

b) Die Taufe der Gläubigen (das sind Menschen, die zu Jüngern geworden sind) ist ein Befehl des Herrn selbst:

Mt 28:19 Gehet hin und machet alle Nationen zu Jüngern, und taufet sie auf den Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes

 

c) Menschen, die das Evangelium gehört und geglaubt haben wurden daraufhin auch getauft und kamen exakt diesem Befehl nach:

Apg 16:15 Als sie aber samt ihrem Hause getauft worden war, bat sie und sprach: Wenn ihr davon überzeugt seid, daß ich an den Herrn gläubig bin, so kommet in mein Haus und bleibet daselbst! Und sie nötigte uns.

Apg 8:12 Als sie aber dem Philippus glaubten, der das Evangelium vom Reiche Gottes und vom Namen Jesu Christi predigte, ließen sich Männer und Frauen taufen.

 Apg 19:5 Als sie das hörten, ließen sie sich taufen auf den Namen des Herrn Jesus.

Apg 18:8 Krispus aber, der Synagogenvorsteher, wurde samt seinem ganzen Hause an den Herrn gläubig; auch viele Korinther, die zuhörten, wurden gläubig und ließen sich taufen.

c) Voraussetzung zur Taufe ist der Glaube und die Wiedergeburt:

Apg 10:47 Dann antwortete Petrus: Könnte wohl jemand das Wasser verwehren, daß diese nicht getauft würden, die den Heiligen Geist empfangen haben, gleichwie auch wir?

B) Durch archäologische Ausgrabungen der frühchristlichen Stätten in Israel und in der Türkei, weiß man, dass es dort zunächst nur Taufbecken zum Untertauchen gab. D.h. die Gemeinden hielten sich zunächst an den Befehl des Herrn, die Gläubigen zu taufen. Die Säuglingsbesprengung (das hat nichts mit der biblischen Glaubenstaufe zu tun), entstand erst im Zuge des Abfalls von neutestamentlichen Grundwahrheiten in Verbindung mit der Klerikalisierung und der Pervertierung in das Staatschristentum - bei den frühen apostolischen Vätern findet man jedoch noch die Tatsache, dass die Täuflinge vor der Taufe noch unterrichtet werden mussten etc.

C) Ich würde den Satz bei Martin dann entsprechend umformulieren: die Ketzerei der Säuglingstaufe entstand erst nach der Zeit der ersten Christen im Zuge des Abfalls und des Ungehorsams gegen Gottes Wort !
Die Lehre der Taufwiedergeburt ist m.E. mitverantwortlich dafür, dass sich Millionen für Christen halten, die gar nicht gerettet sind. Für ungläubige Pfarrer etc., die den Menschen das ewige Heil und die Versöhnung mit Gott aufgrund der Bespritzung mit einigen Wassertropfen zusprechen, wäre es besser, sie wären nie geboren.

Peter - BRD

  Taufwiedergeburt


Lieber Hans Peter, 

ich meinte, ob Du Quellen hast, die belegen, dass es die Täufer (bzw. deren Gesinnung) schon vor der Reformation gab und dass sie sich bis zu den Aposteln zurückverfolgen laesst.

Theologisch ist das natürlich klar, dass es so ist, aber gibt es auch historische Hinweise, dass es diese fortlaufend gab?

 Die Protestanten behaupten ja, dass es die "Wieder"- Täufer erst seit der Reformation gab, was ja leider auch viel abgenommen wird.

 in IHM,

 Martin


Lieber Hans-Peter und Martin,
 
ich wollte zum angesprochenen Thema einen Abschnitt aus einem m.E. brauchbaren Aufsatz weitergeben, der einige Fakten in bezug auf die Frage der Taufe im frühen Christentum gut zusammenfasst. Der Autor ist selbst Befürworter der Glaubenstaufe.
An einigen Stellen des übrigen Aufsatzes (komplett unter https://www.c3.hu/~bocs/rcmenno.htm abrufbar) muss man jedoch auch Fragezeichen machen, der der Autor die Abgründe des römischen-Katholizismus wohl nicht voll erfasst haben kann: ("And I have seen contemporary Anabaptists learn from Catholics in areas that we thought were our strengths" oder "Catholics who are more faithful to Jesus than I am")
 
Bei der Diskussion um den literarischen Niederschlag der Glaubenstaufe ist natürlich zu beachten, dass die triumphalistische Staatskirche, im Zuge der Verfolgung der wahren Gemeinde Jesu immer auch deren Schrifttum ausradiert hat. Ich komme zeitlich leider nicht dazu, den Aufsatz zu verdeutschen.....einige m.E. wichtige Sätze habe ich etwas hervogehoben.
 
Viele Grüße im Herrn 
Peter
 
The third area in which structural inversion occurred as Christendom dawned had to do with baptism - the baptism of adults who could speak their consent and remember their promises was replaced by the baptism of newly born infants. Throughout the first four centuries, the baptism that we have observed as we have examined the four stages of conversion - although admitting of a great deal of local variation (Bradshaw 1992:169) - was preponderantly that of adults who had been scrutinized and catechized and who, when the time was adjudged right, were able to say, “I renounce you, Satan, and all your service and all your works”, and “I believe” (Apostolic Tradition 21). Of course, even in the Apostolic Tradition, there were the parvuli. Squeezed somewhat uncomfortably into the liturgy that was designed for “those who can speak for themselves” was the baptism of these little ones “who cannot speak for themselves;” in their case someone else - a parent or a sponsor - was asked to confess the faith and make the promises in their behalf. In North Africa, by the mid-third century Bishop Cyprian had repudiated Tertullian’s hesitations about infant baptism; in a famous letter (Ep 64 [58]) he justified baptizing infants even earlier than the eighth day on the grounds of “the contagion of the ancient death.” But current scholarship, based not on imperatives of a later theology but on evidence of actual practice at the time, indicates that the baptism of newborn infants was exceptional, even in North Africa. As we have seen, Augustine’s pious mother Monnica cared for her newborn’s spiritual welfare by providing not the waters of baptism but the salt of the catechumenate (Conf 1.11.17). This seems to have been true elsewhere. David Wright lists the nameable children of pious fourth-century homes - Ambrose, Basil the Great, Ephraem Syrus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Macrina, Jerome, Rufinus of Aquileia, John Chrysostom, Paulinus of Nola – who were baptized in adulthood, not as infants (1997:393). Of these, Chrysostom stated that in Antioch they practiced “even the baptism of infants” (Baptismal Instructions 3.6), while, in Cappadocia, Gregory thought it important that, where health permitted, the baptism of children should be delayed until they were at least three when they could understand what they were promising and “begin to be responsible for their lives” (Oratio 40.18). Of course, as inscriptions show, in the third and fourth centuries children were baptized at many ages, including at times before they were three. But Professor Ferguson (1979) has demonstrated that these early baptisms were followed almost invariably by the death of the child; they were emergency child baptisms, not habitual infant baptisms. A third-century inscription from the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome shows the pattern:

Sweet Tyche lived one year, 10 months, 15 days. Received (grace) on the 8th day before the Kalends . . . Gave up (her soul) on the same day. (Ferguson1979:42).

Tyche’s parents had probably taken John 3.5 to heart, and wanted her to be “born of water and Spirit” and thus to enter the after-life in safety. And the church authorities, without having any coherent theological rationale for their position, had said yes to the pressure of laymen - parents who loved their children(Ferguson 1979:42-44; Wright 1987).

In the fourth century, the number of adult converts was huge. In Antioch, the annual total of baptizands could reach a thousand (Piédagnel 1990:250); but it was never large enough for the preachers. Chrysostom, the Cappadocians, and Augustine all urged the catechumens in their world to stop temporizing and to submit themselves to baptism: the “exhortation to baptism” is a characteristic fourth-century patristic form . Augustine excelled at it. But it would disappear in the fifth and sixth centuries, in part because the various forms of official suasion left few adults unconverted, and partly because of the spread of infant baptism. In the West this is primarily because of the theological influence of Augustine of Hippo. In theological combat with the Pelagians, and arguing from the practice of baptizing newborn babies, Augustine elaborated the doctrine of original sin which saw the baptism of the infant as essential to the infant’s eternal salvation and thus as pressingly urgent (Pelikan 1971:317-318). Augustine’s theology thus followed where the parental concern of earlier centuries had gone before, and the baptism of every infant could be seen as an emergency. The liturgies of the church took a long time to reflect this new reality, but by the eighth century liturgies had come to be written specifically for the baptisms of those who could not speak for themselves (Whitaker 1970:166; Didier 1965). David Wright, the patristics scholar who has worked most seriously on this issue, has called this development a “baptismal revolution” (Wright 2001).

The consequences of this shift from the primacy of adult baptism to the omnipresence of infant baptism were all embracing. In terms of the process of conversion, things were truncated: the leisurely four-staged conversion journey of the pre-Augustinian church was no longer appropriate. Instead there were two stages: stage A, which was the baptism soon after birth, with promises made by godparents, conferred belonging in the Christian church and civilization; and a lengthy stage B, in which the parents and godparents were to instruct the child in the essentials of Christian belief and behaviour. After 479 in the West, confirmation might punctuate stage B (Fisher and Yarnold 1992:149), but there rarely seems to have been effective catechism associated with confirmation. In many places, churchmen were satisfied if the believers knew the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed (Jegen 1967:209). The early Christians would not have called this conversion! Liturgically, baptism also suffered. It became disconnected from the major feasts of Easter and Pentecost, and was scattered throughout the year. The baptismal ceremonies themselves shrunk: in comparison with the “awe-inspiring” rites of the third- and fourth-century church they were humdrum, routine, at times slapdash. The evolution of the shape of the baptismal fonts is eloquent of this trivialization of baptism. The Catholic liturgical scholar A. Khatchatrian has indicated this in schematic form, as baptism over the centuries became higher and dryer (Khatchatrian 1982; see attached sheet). Lutheran liturgical theologian Anita Stauffer bewails this development:

As affusion (pouring) replaced immersion and submersion by the late sixteenth century, fonts became minimal. In time they resembled birdbaths, then salad bowls, and finally teacups. The rich biblical and patristic understandings of baptism as birth, burial and bath had been lost. It became impossible to interpret the font as womb or tomb or even as bathtub. One cannot bathe, not to speak of drown, in a fingerbowl (Stauffer 1994:14).

This structural inversion of baptism had consequences for many aspects of the societies of Christendom Europe. Let us consider only its impact on two of these - the laity and the clergy. Generally speaking, the laity were in the church, not because they had chosen to respond to the Christian good news, but because of societal inevitabilities. Their parents, by having them baptized as newborn infants, had done in their behalf, with the best of intentions, what everybody did and indeed what the law required. So, from the sixth century onwards, the militia Christi of Christendom was made up of conscripts. They were poorly catechized; but they were expected to respect the clergy, to come to church, to pay a tenth of their income to the ecclesiastical establishment, and to stop engaging in pagan practices. Throughout the history of Christendom there are records of people rebelling against these expectations. In Caesarius’s Arles, the congregations misbehaved in church, and were so eager to leave the services that Caesarius had to lock the doors so they would stay to hear his “very moving sermons” (Vita Caesarii 1.19, 27). Preachers such as Martin of Braga repeatedly had to remind the laity to stop engaging in the “worship of the Devil”: burning candles at stones and trees and springs, muttering spells over herbs and the like. They must “think what pact you made with God in that very Baptism.” For they had promised to renounce the Devil, that is “if you were already able to reply, or certainly he who promised for you and received you from the font said” (On the Castigation of Rustics 15). That was the problem. In a church without effective catechism, whose members were there because of the promises that others made on their behalf and whom the authorities compelled to go to church and to pay for its operation, there was bound to be stonewalling. Further, there was bound to be syncretism, not only in religious observances but in ethics. Lay Christians, in a world Christianized by these means, were bound to live ordinary lives, shaped by the values and techniques that were deeply embedded in the customs and psyches of their folk. If they chose like the early Christians to live extraordinarily, loving their enemies, sharing their possessions and the rest, ordinary Christians thought that they were insane. As Augustine overheard lukewarm, long-time, Christians telling recent converts who wanted to take Jesus’ hard sayings seriously, “You’re going to extremes . . . it’s lunacy!” (Sermon 88.12)

Inevitably, the structural inversion which changed the character of baptism also affected the clergy of Christendom. This is a point that I am newly investigating, but my initial explorations indicate the following. A church that was big, public, teeming with members, required charismatic public gifts that had not been required of the leaders of the early domestic congregations. Many signs indicate that the leaders recognized their own importance to the large churches of Christendom. Their language is significant: in the “ship of the church” the clergy were “mariners”, while the laity were “passengers”, or, to use pastoral language, the clergy were “shepherds” and the laity were “brute creatures” (Apostolic Constitutions 2.58). Architecture is also significant: it is symbolic that walls emerged to separate the “sanctuaries” where the clergy did their holy things from the domain of the laity. A distinctive clerical clothing developed as well. In 428 Pope Celestine I took objection to this. It was a “novelty” for clerics to dress differently from laymen. Clerics were to be distinguished from “the common folk”, but “by our learning, not by our garments . . .” (PL 50.431-1; Cristiani 1947). This development of a caste of professionals superintending the operation of big congregations was so important it was bound to lead to theological justification. So theologians now elevated ordination to a new level of significance. The clerics were the extraordinary Christians. Eusebius of Caesarea saw them as men who, “wholly and permanently separate from the common customary life of mankind . . . appear to die to the life of mortals . . . [and perform] the duty of a priesthood to Almighty God for the whole race.” The laity, in contrast, live by “a kind of secondary grade of piety” (Dem Ev 1.8). A more subtle theologian than Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa developed exalted understandings of the transformation that occurred in ordination: the benediction which is bestowed on the priest in the ordination prayer “makes him venerable, honorable, and separated from the common man . . . While continuing to be in all appearances the man he was before, by some unseen power and grace the unseen soul is transformed for the better” (Bapt. Chr.). To express and articulate this reality ritually, the liturgies of ordination became increasingly elaborate. So also did the rites of monastic profession, in which the newly professed monk’s death to his old life was symbolized by his lying under a funeral pall; indeed, some writers not only called monastic profession “a second baptism” but viewed it as more important than baptism (Malone 1951:125; Foley 1989:15). It is thought-provoking to relate these developments to baptism itself. Chronologically, the efflorescence of clericalism coincided with the routinization of baptism; the priesthood gained its extraordinary qualities at the same time as baptism became ordinary, indeed inevitable, and lost social significance. The developing rites of ordination and profession underscore this coincidence. The clericalization of the church is the obverse of the structural inversion that impoverished baptism.


 

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (https://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.703 / Virus Database: 459 - Release Date: 10.06.2004