Papist Support for Murder?!?!

I had just read the book, The Anabaptist Story, by William R. Estep and then wrote my article on baptism. Since the book mentioned the Waldenses sect I decided to read a book in my library which I hadn’t read since 2007: History of the Waldenses, by J.A. Wylie.

The Waldenses were essentially the original protestants, long before the Reformation, and they had the New Testament translated into their own language. The commonality with the Anabaptists was that they both read the Bible as written and didn’t add or subtract from it for their beliefs. Both had issues with the papist religion: the Waldenses refused to accept the false teaching of the Mass and the Anabaptists disagreed with infant baptism.

There was nothing in their teachings that I found in these books that could be considered heresy, but the papist church (i.e. the POPE) decided they were heretics and therefore must be destroyed. Both sects had papist armies and leaders persecuting, attacking and murdering them for “heresy.” The papists killed all people of all ages in some of the most heinous ways possible. 

On 8/10/26 the following comment was posted to my article about baptism but I moderated it out and decided to address it in this post. Here is the comment:

John S. Erwin commented on "What About Infant Baptism?"

I know that this is going to send literal chills down Glenn's spine, but I support the persecution of those Anabaptist heretics. My basis for this is Romans 13. The Roman Catholic Church was a government and it had been entrusted with the power of the sword to protect the citizens. If Rome had successfully stomped them out, we would not have many of the cultural problems that exist today, such as the normalization of homosexuality.

First, it didn’t send any chills down my spine, rather just a shake of the head at such blatant ignorance and scripture-twisting. 

Second, the Catholic Church was originally just the entire Christian Church but Constantine made it a virtual part of all government systems, leading the Roman Church into apostasy and heresy.  NOWHERE in the Bible will you find that the church or government has authority to persecute and MURDER those who disagree with the papist church. Murdering people, especially in horrid and heinous ways, proved that the papist church was NOT a Christian church. Murdering people for not accepting infant baptism or the Mass is not protecting anyone. 

Third, in no way could/would Romans 13 refer to the need to murder so-called heretics.

Lastly, being against baptism and the mass would have absolutely NO connection with cultural problems today—that analogy is just plain STUPID!

What About Infant Baptism?

(Blue ink for citations and maroon ink for citations inside the citations.)

I have never accepted infant baptism as legitimate since I could never find it in Scripture and because baptism is symbolic of the new life in Christ. Faith in Jesus is required and an infant doesn’t have that faith. This citation is a perfect description of the problem:

In opposition to the usual arguments for infant baptism the Brethren set forth their position, underscoring the basic insights of Anabaptism. 

First, the nature of baptism rules out the possibility of infant baptism. New Testament baptism requires prior conviction for, and repentance of, sin, and faith in Christ. Baptism is viewed as a symbol of initiation into the church and a sign of the new life which the believer has in Christ. “In other words, baptism is to be administered only after receiving the Holy Spirit; and children, though they are not necessarily condemned, do not have the Holy Spirit.”

Second, baptism is a symbol and not a sacrament. It has no meaning where faith in Christ is absent. 

Third, Christ has set for us an example through his own baptism. 

Fourth, through the Great Commission he has explicitly commanded us to teach and baptize. Fifth, baptism is not analogous to circumcision: 

“As for the matter of circumcision, it is clear that baptism is not the same as the Old Testament act of initiation, but its its replacement. The analogy should not be pushed too far. Summarizing: Baptism is not the expression of a mechanical covenant theory, it requires a certain type of personal standing and a personal relation to God, the Father of Jesus Christ.” (Jan Matthijssen, Bern Disputation, p.32)

William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.206-7

Therefore, on the basis of the N.T., baptism must be preceded by repentance; the person being baptized must have reached an age at which he or she would be capable of repentance. Baptism should never be administered without a previous profession of faith. Baptism is also tied in with membership in the church and infants cannot hold church membership. The order required for believer’s baptism (the only proper baptism) according to Scripture: hearing the Word, believing the Word by faith, repentance, then baptism.

Contrary to some teaching (e.g. Roman Catholicism), baptism has no salvific value, rather it is the inward acceptance of the Gospel and placing one’s faith in the work of Christ for salvation. 

Baptism signifies the forgiveness of sins, an inner transformation of mind and heart, and a pledge of a life of discipleship.

 William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story, pg.202. Citing the teachings of Conrad (Konrad) Grebel.

It would not be confusing to say that Christian baptism is immersion in water in the name of the  Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and it signifies that the one baptized is identified with, or united with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

Earl C. Smith, M.S., D.D., Paul’s Gospel: An Analysis and Exposition of the Major Epistles, pg.102-103

What about “household” baptisms, as in Acts 10 with Cornelius, Acts 16 with Lydia, Acts 16 with the Philippian jailer, Acts 18 with Crispus, and 1 Corinthians 1 with Stephanas? Wouldn’t children be in these households? The Bible says the people being baptized believed the Gospel message—how do infants have that sort of faith? An excellent synopsis of these events and why they don’t include infant baptisms can be found here: Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Finally, in the Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”), chapter 7, we find the following instructions about baptism, which is what the early church taught and believed:

Now concerning baptism. Baptize as follows, when you have rehearsed the aforesaid teaching: Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, use whatever is available. And if you cannot do it in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times—in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Big Five O

After the Lord arranged a meeting on 1 August 1974, He then led us to the altar two years later.  We have now been blessed with 50 years together as the two became one. Today we celebrate our 50th.