"During the middleman many of these separatists were known as the Manic. The Manic were a collection of sects (all of which seemed to share the same dualist heresy), known as Publicans, sometimes as the Binomials, sometimes as the Pasterns, sometimes as the Catharses and sometimes as the Aliening. They SEEM to have shared some connection with earlier Gnostic tradition but because they were not always found on the margins of the Christian culture and society a clear picture is not always easy to come by. It is this kind of heretical sectarianism that disturbed not only those at Trent . . . but the MAGISTERIAL Reformers were just as concerned NOT TO GIVE PLACE to the advancement of such ANARCHISTIC political and RELIGIOUS� tendencies." i bid.,� Let is, pages 17,18.

Let is' list of Anabaptists is not, by any means, complete [Donatists and Waldenses (prior to 1532)]. The odd thing is that these "Johnny come lately" reformers should chide groups, who predate the reformers for not conforming to a system and doctrines, which were NOT once delivered to the saints, which things postdate the apostolic faith and practice and also post date Anabaptist groups, who were protesting the moral and doctrinal corruption of the Papists long before anyone ever heard of a Protestant Reformer. Letis conveys the impression that all of these groups were only contemporaries of the reformation in Germany rather than predating it all over Europe. Despite documented Paulican repudiation of Manicheaus and his doctrine, Papists and Protestants continue to slander and disparage them with these false charges.

The writer does not elaborate on what he means by "dualist." If� because the Paulicans believed there is a force for good (God) and a force for wickedness (Satan), Paulicans, indeed, were Dualists, but that would be a weak connection to Mancheaus. We suspect that the so-called Paulist heresy had more to do with their attributing the Papist church to Satan. That is a bit much for the Papist Harlot and her offspring. It is not that Anabaptists (all types) were not found in the Christian culture and society. They had no desire nor need to be identified with this SACRAL political society for one biblical reason or another.

Naturally, the reformers were not prepared to ALLOW or GIVE PLACE to any RELIGIOUS ANARCHISTIC tendencies against their SACRAL society, even if they had to use brutal force to quell it. They held councils on how they might destroy them (Matt. 12:14; Mark 14:55-15:1; John 11:47; Acts 23: 15,20,21) stirring up the religious community against them (Acts 6:12), enlisting unbelievers' help to accomplish that end (Mark 3:6), employing false witness (Matt. 26:59) to put them to death.

"The Protestants saw the wisdom of retaining an OFFICIAL Church/State connection to ASSURE the preservation both of social order, but also for the preservation of the integrity of the now RENEWED Church and the promise of a RENEWED Christendom. But those who would have nothing to do with the STATE ESTABLISHED forms of the RENEWED CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY . . . now FLED to the haven of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in the New World-Colonial America. In time, this new republic broke free from all formal political connections with old Christendom. The Lockean social philosophy animated most of the American political thinkers who agitated for revolution. They determined that the Christian religion would be, for the first time in the history of the Christian West, DISESTABLISHED and regarded as, at best, just an option within the boundaries of the post-Enlightenment state. America being the breeding ground of every INDEPENDENT religious impulse conceivable to human consciousness."� ibid., Letis, pages 22, 23)

The Protestant Reformers, like their harlot mother church, love the OFFICIAL STATE CHURCH. It is how they can control and maintain what they never could under freedom. Once said church is established, those who will have nothing to do with it MUST FLEE! We have here a man, who like many reconstructionists, would eliminate American and Baptists freedom in favor of European or early New England religious oppression, where Baptists were beaten and imprisoned for the crime of preaching the gospel without a license from their Papist daughter tyrants. Thank God that they were able to break that yoke. What Letis sees as negatives, we Baptists see as positives. And if the Son shall set us free, we shall be free indeed.

"Predicting the second coming of Christ became a near national pastime as Darbyite dispensationalism (which never took hold in its native England were the ESTABLISHED STATE CHURCH was still FIRMLY IN CONTROL, promoting ancient CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY), flourished in the now dominant anabaptist culture of 20th century America. Not only did the reformation faiths never really flourish in the United States (but perhaps for a brief moment in New England), even the Roman Catholic Church in time took on more of the appearance of� a democratic lodge rather than the most AUTOCRATIC institution in the modern world. Cut off from the archetype of ancient CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY, America invented its own orthodoxy-Fundamentalism . . .The problem was; how was one to choose between so many options, proliferating at a dizzying rate, with no AUTHORATIVE ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDANCE?"� ibid., Letis, pages 25,26

Letis wants an ESTABLISHED STATE CHURCH, which is FIRMLY IN CONTROL. That is the only way to promote his ancient catholic orthodoxy - BY FORCE. Reformation faiths do not "flourish" under freedom, because they must be State imposed, in order to flourish. They, certainly, will never flourish through their present methods of evangelism. All Englanders and Germans are taxed to support churches, to which they may or may not belong nor embrace nor agree.

Letis even bemoans the demise of the Catholic autocracy. The so-called AUTHORATATIVE ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDANCE, which the writer wants to return, is the RED HOT PINCHERS of his last quoted note. Nevertheless, those persecuted for righteousness sake are blessed (Matt. 5:10), something Protestants rarely have to worry about. Because many of the legitimate ana-baptists were hated and persecuted by Catholics and Protestants it is evidence that Christ had chosen them (John 15:18,19), the exception being those, who suffer for wickedness.

Although Letis seems to come across with the Authorized Bible as his final authority, it is the same old Papist "BUT the established church will interpret it for you." If Protestant authority is to be found in a State Church or Catholic Orthodoxy, they have no authority! Jesus asked the ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY, if the baptism of John was of heaven or of men ? (Mark 11:27-33). Baptists, who derive their authority from the scriptures, can easily answer for John and themselves. Let the Protestants attempt to do the same. Baptists believe that if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them(Isa. 8:20). Their faith does not stand in the wisdom of men (Col. 2:8). Unlike Protestants, Baptists believe that the scriptures, plus nothing minus nothing, is sufficient to throughly furnish the man of God unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:17).

The shameful treatment, which many orthodox Baptists have incurred from both Catholic and Protestant alike is cause for their rejoicing that they were counted worthy by their God to suffer shame for His Name (Acts 5:41).

The catholic orthodoxy or tradition will never be accepted by a religiously (and politically) FREE people, who reject the commandments and traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world (Col. 2:8). When men lay aside the commandment of God for their tradition, when they seek loopholes to void and avoid the word of God and when they make the word of God of none effect (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:7-13), they are to be rejected.

Baptists will not be spoiled easily by the traditions of men and cunningly devised fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth (Titus 1:14). For Reformed Protestants and many loose Baptists, the time is at hand, when men have itching ears and will not endure sound doctrine, turning unto fables and teachers, who accommodate them (2 Tim. 4:3). The Reformers perverted the Gospel (Gal. 1:7) with their sacraments and infant baptism and sprinkling, and they still do pervert the picture (Rom. 6:5) of the Gospel (burial in water). It is to be expected that they resent, often violently,� those who transgress and correct their traditional "catholic" orthodoxy (John 9:34).

"Luther and Calvin both their worse fears realized. During the years 1533-35 a community of Anabaptists turned their backs on ancient Christendom, horded up the Westphalian city of Munster, led by an arch-fanatic, John Matthys, who claimed to be Enoch and persuaded the entire city that the end of the world was at hand and that Munster was now the New Jerusalem. Cut off from the Catholics as well as Protestant Europe, without external restraints, the city became a grim den of all manner of excess: All goods were to be held in common, and polygamy was now sanctioned. Those who would not be rebaptized were either forced to flee or else were slaughtered." ibid., Letis, page 21

"They were all condemned to be put to death with RED-HOT PINCHERS in the market place of Munster." (Letis - ibid., page 54, note 90)

The Catholics blame the Lutherans for the Munster insurrection and the Lutherans blame the anabaptists (who are the most vocal advocates of religious freedom and avowed enemies of religion by force). Still the Catholics and Lutherans became the historians and wrote what they pleased.

Actually, the insurrection had more to do with politics and an oppressive feudal system than it had to do with religion. The disturbance was led and begun by a synod of Lutheran ministers, led by Bernard Rotman (or Bernhardt Rothman), who opposed the Papists with arms before any re-baptizers ever became connected with it. (Rothman was supposedly converted to anabaptism the very year that the trouble started. How convenient for blaming legitimate Anabaptists! Not much time for indoctrination or catechism classes. ) Also, there were Roman Catholics involved and a greater group of Lutherans and also those, who were void of any religious principles.

While no one denies the involvement of persons that rebaptized, it may be said that these rebaptizers were distinct from those, who would legitimately be termed Anabaptists, in that they differed in doctrine and principle, rebaptism being the only resemblance. Menno Simon differed with John of Lyden as greatly in doctrine and spirit as Luther and the Papists. Baptists of that period were PACIFISTS and were not concerned with secular kingdoms.

The Munster riots, in full swing, were condemned by the real Anabaptists in January, 1535 at Sparendam. A large gathering of Baptists at Bocholt in Westphalia in the summer of 1536 repudiated the whole movement. The Schleitheim Confession of Faith condemned the Christian's use of the sword as did the later descendants of Menno Simon, perhaps, still believe. It may also be said that before the Munster turmoil, the peasant war resulted in a loss of 100 thousand lives and ended May 15, 1525, and was led BY A LUTHERAN, Thomas Munzer, a one time friend of Martin Luther, who was never an Anabaptist (but may have briefly condemned infant baptism) and continued to practice infant baptism until the end of his life. But why did Luther ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for that great loss of life, if it was the fault of an Anabaptist? (Baptists may have met with Munzer but they opposed and disagreed with Munzer's views.)

Regarding polygamy in Munster, it can not be documented from their writings that the Munster rebaptizers (nor legitimate Anabaptists of that time) believed in polygamy. Still Letis does not tell us about Luther and Melanchton declaring polygamy not contrary to the Christian religion.

"By the middle of the next century, nearly everyone was prepared to put down the old English Bible and take up one of the many modern options now available; but for the fundamentalists, all of who normally held emotionally, rather than in an informed way, to the Bible of the Anglican church . . . this is an inexplicable irony because no anabaptist worked on the committee that produced the AV . . .One reason the Anglican Bible became the Bible of the Fundamentalists is because most had no intimate knowledge of the actual history of the English Bible which would have made clear this was the official Bible of the Anglican Church, which Church had historically been consistently INTOLERANT toward the anabaptist communities." ibid., Letis,� pages 33,34

Unlike his teacher, Edward Hills, Teddy Letis betrays his latent humanist and naturalistic tendencies or else he does not want to give the Holy Spirit any credit for leading Baptists and Fundamentalists to retain the AV 1611 Bible, while his Reformed brethren, for the most part, put it down (while picking up the worst of Bibles) and have not picked it back up until this very day. We do thank him for clearly showing his and his spiritual ancestor's intolerance towards Baptists and fundamentalists. It will help them not to forget and be lulled asleep by ecumenical overtures.

Letis calls the A.V. 1611, "the Anglican Bible" (although the translators were not all Anglicans).� It is amazing how Letis can jump from German anabaptists, who predated the reformation, who did not use the Anglican Bible nor even Luther's Bible to British Baptists, who used other Bibles prior to the 1611 Bible. Moreover, we might accuse Anglicans of plagiarism (something that Letis detests), in that the A.V. 1611 Bible is at least 90 percent William Tyndale.

To say the most for William Tyndale, "He was a Baptist."* To say the least for William Tyndale, "Tyndale had many basic Ana-baptist traits" (which Letis also despises). He was a separatist, he was anti-catholic, and he did not believe in baptismal regeneration. The great trait that merits attention is that he was martyred at the hand of the Catholic orthodoxy or the Papist harlot.

*Note: John T. Christian quotes Davis' "History of the Welch Baptists," page 21, as claiming that Tyndale was, indeed, a Baptist and that Llewellyn and Hezekiah Tyndale were members of the Baptist church at Abergaverny, South Wales. ("A History of the Baptists," Vol. 1, page 187.)

(Christian's "History of the Baptists" and also Orchard's� "History of the Baptists might prove interesting reading for those, who would pursue the subject further. Much of this critique is taken from these two books.)

What shall we say then? It seems that Theodore Letis has approached this subject with extreme prejudice and an ax to grind. The thing that baffles us is how he can end up being connected to a joint video project to a fundamentalist college (Pensacola Christian College), which must have a number of Baptists there or at least Baptistic brethren. Did they know his position on these things? Well, it is our understanding that they have privately disowned Teddy Letis. We would be happier if it were a public denouncement.

By Herb Evans
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001
Subject: [BBFI-Debate] Anti-Baptists and Ana-baptists