Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Radical Reformation History  /  Lecture 16: Menno Simons and the Early Dutch Anabaptists  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 7
The Battenbergers argued “everything belonged to God,” so they felt justified taking property, killing, polygamy, and “sharing their wives”; how does that grotesque logic expose the difference between God’s ownership and human entitlement, and what respectable forms of the same attitude appear when Christians spiritualize greed, power, or control?
Another way to ask: How does the Battenbergers’ claim that “everything belongs to God” show the difference between God owning all things and people thinking they are entitled to take what they want? What more “respectable” versions of this show up when Christians excuse greed, power, or control?

Direct Answer Dean’s description shows how claiming “everything belongs to God” became a cover for entitlement—treating God’s ownership as permission for believers to seize what they want and harm others. The same heart can appear today in more “respectable” forms when Christians baptize selfish control, material gain, or domination with spiritual language.

Support from Transcript:

  • Dean recounts the Battenbergers’ reasoning: “Everything belonged to God… and if you’re of God and this guy’s not, well, then I own what he has.”
  • Their actions followed: “taking over… monasteries,” “taking over some guy’s house,” “killing somebody,” “sharing their wives,” and Münster-like “polygamy.”
  • He notes violence and chaos: “going around blowing stuff up.”
  • He adds they practiced adult baptism, so they were “thrown into this whole mix,” increasing confusion about true biblical faith.
  • Obe Philips “came directly against that even early on,” showing that Scripture-shaped leaders saw the logic as incompatible with Christian discipleship.
Discussion Follow-ups Where do Christians today imply, “God wants me to have this,” in a way that excuses harming others or ignoring justice? How do we distinguish stewardship under God from using God-language to legitimize grasping?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next