The Short Answer
Anabaptists are best understood as neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant in the usual theological sense. Their historic identity is a “third way”: not submission to Roman Catholic or Orthodox institutional claims, and not merely a Protestant revision of Catholic theology, but a return to the teaching of Jesus, the New Testament church, and the life of the earliest Christians.
That answer matters because the label “Protestant” can hide the very thing early Anabaptists were trying to recover. They were not simply asking, “Which side of the Reformation debate should we join?” They were asking, “What did Christ command, and what did the apostolic church practice?”
Why This Question Matters
If “Protestant” only means “not Roman Catholic,” then Anabaptists might look Protestant at first glance. They rejected Roman Catholic authority structures, refused many Catholic practices, and lived in the same world where Lutheran and Zwinglian reforms were taking place.
But if “Protestant” means belonging to the theological and churchly system of the magisterial Reformers, the answer changes. The lesson on The Anabaptists states the distinction plainly: “the Anabaptists were neither Catholic nor were they Protestant or Reformed.” Their “third way” is described as the “Kingdom way,” connected with the same basic conclusions associated there with primitive Christians and other renewal movements.
So the issue is not merely a history label. It is a question of authority, church life, discipleship, baptism, separation from the world, and obedience to Christ.
What Scripture Says
No Christian identity is safe if it rests mainly on a party name. The Anabaptist argument, at its strongest, is not “our tradition is old” or “our group is right.” It is that Christ’s call must govern the church.
That is why the Sound Faith discussion on Anabaptists rediscovering Christ beyond institutions warns against defining Christians by “human institutions rather than by the call of Christ.” The issue is not whether a church can trace a name, a hierarchy, or a confessional system. The issue is whether it practices the teachings of Jesus.
The same concern appears in the discussion of early Anabaptist separation. In Separation from the World: Lessons from Early Anabaptists, the critique of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian churches centers on discipleship and church order: they did not “follow Christ’s order to first teach and then baptize,” did not rightly use church discipline, and did not preserve the cross of Christ through upright living.
That is the biblical heart of the matter as presented by Anabaptist teaching: the church is not defined first by being anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant. It is defined by hearing Christ, teaching disciples, baptizing those who respond, keeping a holy brotherhood, and living as a kingdom governed by heaven’s principles. The video on the Kingdom of God and Kingdom Christianity expresses this as God calling people “to be part of a kingdom governed by the principles of heaven.”
How the Earliest Christians Understood This
The earliest Christian witness matters here, but it must be used rightly. Early Christian writers are not equal to Scripture. They can, however, show how Christians close to the apostolic age understood church life.
A discussion of Anabaptists and early Christian congregational church origins notes that some early Anabaptists were well read in the early Christians. Pilgram Marpeck is mentioned as one who answered Catholic arguments by quoting early Christian writers back to them. The point was not to replace the Bible with the fathers. The point was that early Christian practice did not always support the later institutional claims being made against the Anabaptists.
That same discussion says the early Anabaptists were “trying to follow what they saw in the New Testament,” namely congregational churches, and that this is also seen “in the earliest works of the early Christians.” The picture given is not isolated individualism, but congregations that “work together.”
A later church document such as Correspondence with Pope Innocent I - Chapter 1 shows a different kind of concern: bishops, ordination disputes, Catholic recognition, and obedience to the canons of Nicaea. That kind of post-Nicene institutional framework helps explain why Anabaptists did not simply identify their restoration effort with “Catholic” church order.
Common Misunderstandings
Misunderstanding 1: “Neither Catholic nor Protestant” means Anabaptists invented a brand-new Christianity. That is not the historic Anabaptist claim. The claim is restoration, not novelty. Lynn Martin’s talk Who is Right? Catholics and Orthodox? Protestants? Someone Else? describes a “third option” and connects it with churches seeking to keep alive “the original faith that the apostles taught.”
Misunderstanding 2: If Anabaptists quote Protestants, they must be Protestant. Quoting a writer does not mean adopting that writer’s whole theological system. In the Q&A segment Why Do Anabaptists Quote Protestants Who Hold Erroneous Doctrines?, the speaker objects to uncritical use of Protestant teachers precisely because Anabaptists are understood as “neither Protestant nor Catholic.”
Misunderstanding 3: Every group with Anabaptist roots remains equally non-Protestant. History is messier than labels. David Bercot’s Menno-Protestants 2 argues that some groups with Anabaptist history later took on Protestant theology so strongly that the Protestant element “pretty well stamped out” the Anabaptist one. So the question must be answered both historically and practically: What does a particular church actually teach and practice?
What This Means for Christians Today
The best answer is not merely, “Anabaptists are neither.” The better answer is, “Anabaptists are meant to be a Christ-centered, kingdom-shaped people rather than a Catholic or Protestant party.”
That means the test is not whether a church has the right historical slogan. The test is whether it follows Jesus in real life: discipleship before baptism, a disciplined brotherhood, separation from worldly systems, love of enemies, practical holiness, and a church life shaped by the New Testament rather than by state power or inherited institutions.
This also guards against pride. Saying “neither Catholic nor Protestant” can become just another identity badge. The warning from Anabaptists rediscovering Christ beyond institutions applies to Anabaptists too: it is possible to define oneself by an institution instead of by the call of Christ.
Keep Studying
For a focused introduction, begin with The Anabaptists, which states the “neither Catholic nor Protestant” answer directly.
To explore the broader “third way” question, study Lynn Martin’s Who is Right? Catholics and Orthodox? Protestants? Someone Else?.
For the early Christian connection, see Anabaptists & Early Christians: Congregational Church Origins.
For practical differences in church discipline and separation, study Separation from the World: Lessons from Early Anabaptists.
For a caution about Anabaptist groups adopting Protestant theology, see David Bercot’s Menno-Protestants 2.
For background on later Catholic institutional language, compare Correspondence with Pope Innocent I - Chapter 1.
