Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission

Rating:
Summary: A Critical Analysis
Review: The Great Commission, recorded at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, holds an extraordinary amount of theology. The reference to the Trinity in baptism, "baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is considered vital to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, in the book of Acts, all of the baptisms are done in the name of Jesus Christ. The Father and Holy Spirit are unmentioned. Friesen's thesis is that Erasmus' new interpretation of the Great Commission was eventually adopted and fully endorsed by the Anabaptists.

To develop his thesis, Friesen first surveys religious history at the time of the Reformations. Humanists, interested in best editions of texts, revived the apparent contradictions between Matthew and Acts. Catholics explained the tension by claiming that the Apostles were superior to God's word; Luther noted that the apostles did not directly contradict Scripture (implying that actions not forbidden in the Bible were acceptable), and Erasmus took a new approach.

Friesen uses Kristeller's definition of Renaissance humanism, and explains the influence of neo-Platonic thought upon Erasmus. He further evaluates concepts developed by Erasmus adopted by the Anabaptists. According to Friesen, Erasmus decided that the early church, closest to the archetype of Christ, was purer than the church of his time. Christians are first like Christ internally, rather than externally; rituals and sacraments were better for helping children in Christ. Friesen notes that Erasmus' translations, with annotations, were popular among the Anabaptists. Erasmus was vague about baptism, but he does make mention that children, as they grow up, should have the opportunity to "imitate" baptism. In this procedure, older adults would explain what baptism meant when the children were baptized as youths. Erasmus also suggested that communion could, in theory, be symbolic, that pacifism was ideal for Christians, and that there was a common brotherhood of men. The Christian humanism of Erasmus undoubtedly influenced Anabaptist intellectual development.

Erasmus' approach to the Great Commission was a radically different than others before him. Erasmus asked what Jesus meant, at the time, and how it was interpreted by the apostles, deciding that syntax was critical. Teaching comes both before, and after, baptism in the Great Commission implying that obedience and an understanding of the gospel-as seen in the book of Acts-is critical for baptism and conversion. Erasmus also concludes the stress on baptism's physical nature takes away from its spiritual reality. He suggests that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, and that as children get older, they should have classes explaining what their baptism did for them. This was an imitation, or reiteration, of baptism. Anabaptists wholeheartedly adopted this argument.

Both Protestants and Catholics distrusted Erasmus, and both hated the Anabaptists. Nonetheless, the Anabaptists survived, and insisted that the Great Commission contained the essence of Christ's legacy to the followers. From the Great Commission and Erasmus' interpretations, the Anabaptists decided that teaching needs to come first in the process of becoming a follower of Christ. Next comes acceptance and then conversion and transformation. Finally, it is time for baptism, which is a milestone-not an ending.

This book is important for readers interesting in studying the development historical theology. Theology never develops in a vacuum, and our theology today is different than that of the patristics, the medievalists, and the Reformers. Friesen does an excellent job explaining the development of believer's baptism, a dogma in many conservative evangelical circles. However, in its infancy (no pun intended), believers' baptism was considered heresy by the two most influential reformers, Luther and Calvin.

Friesen's book is important to the field of historical theology, because the charting of a cultural influence upon theological development is crucial for understanding today's theology. As we view the past, and see how a given culture influences Christian thought, it ought to make us today more humble about our "Timeless Truths." Unfortunately, Friesen does not attempt to draw much application from his thesis, and comes close to writing "history for history's sake." I found it fascinating that the Anabaptists, who were hated by everyone, developed a theological formula that is tantamount to dogma in Baptist circles today; yet Friesen makes no such mention of its application today. For that matter, who knows if some "liberal" fringe group will develop the next big idea in theology-and see it come to fruition a few hundred years later?

This book occupies a narrow slice of church history, but does an excellent job filling its niche. Freisen leaves few questions unanswered, and is unafraid to summarize-and challenge-others' interpretations of this subject. The flow of the book feels natural, and his prose keeps the reader's attention. He seems well-informed on the Reformations as a whole, and is especially good at placing events in a larger context.

Readers and historians interested in the intellectual development of the Anabaptist movement and the spread of Erasmus' Christian humanism should look here for answers. His book should fill an important part of the history of the Reformations, because he does an excellent job including the Catholics and the major Protestant group's responses to both Erasmus and the Anabaptists. Friesen's synthesis abilities are among the best.

Rating:
Summary: A must read in Anabaptist Historiography!!!
Review: This book challenges much of the poly-genesis consensus regarding the origins of the Anabaptist or Wiedertaufer movement. It focuses primarily on the intellectual origins of the movement and points to Erasmus as the progenitor of the Anabaptists' teaching on baptism. Friesen makes the fascinating claim that Erasmus' argument, which proposed using the Great Commission as the paradigm for understanding all other baptismal passages, did not occur before Erasmsus and is utilized by all would be Anabaptists. He also uses this argument to separate Anabaptists proper from their more controversial contempories like the Zwickau prophets whom he says were influenced by Luther and not Erasmus. I think that Friesen offers a convincing argument and helps counteract Harold Bender's view that Erasmus had little to do with the Anabaptist movement. Without a doubt, Friesen has discovered a cave of inquiry which needs to be explored thoroughly for a better understanding of why there was ever a group called Anabaptists.