Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 3
Grebel and Mantz concluded the root problem wasn’t mainly baptismal theology but “what is the Church,” rejecting a population-wide church created by infant baptism; how would early Christians (pre-Constantine) have heard their claim that the church is “called out of the world,” and what would it expose about how many of us define “Christian” today?
Another way to ask: Grebel and Mantz said the real issue was “what is the Church,” not just baptism, and they rejected a whole-population church built by infant baptism. How would early Christians before Constantine hear the idea that the church is “called out of the world,” and what does that reveal about how we define “Christian” today?

Direct Answer Bercot’s account implies early Christians would have recognized Grebel and Mantz’s claim as normal: the church is a distinct people of disciples, not the whole population—exposing how easily “Christian” becomes a cultural label rather than a life of following Christ.

Support from Transcript:

  • Grebel said they found “a different view of the Church” in the New Testament than what Zurich practiced.
  • Bercot describes “statewide infant baptism” as making “the population… one and the same as the membership of the church,” with “no distinction,” a pattern that had existed “almost ever since… Constantine.”
  • The dissenters insisted this isn’t biblical: “the church is something called out of the world… never one and the same as the society around it.”
  • Therefore “only those who want to be disciples of Christ… should be the only ones who are baptized,” forming “a believer’s church of true disciples.”
  • Bercot clarifies the issue was “not the theology of baptism per se, but rather the composition of the church.”
Discussion Follow-ups If the church is “called out,” what modern habits treat church membership like citizenship? How do we distinguish “decent and moral” living from being “a citizen of a kingdom that is not of this world”?