Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 3
The Anabaptists insisted on “a holy, disciplined church, not a state church that included everyone who lived within the state”; what assumptions about conversion, church membership, and holiness does this reflect, and how would adopting those assumptions disrupt the way many modern churches measure success and unity?
Another way to ask: What does the Anabaptists’ push for a holy, disciplined church (not a state church for everyone) assume about conversion, membership, and holiness? How would that upset the way many churches today define success and unity?

Direct Answer The chapter assumes church membership should be for people who have experienced the new birth and are committed to obeying Christ, not for an entire population. Holiness and discipline are pictured as normal and necessary for the church, which would challenge success measured mainly by size, broad inclusion, or social peace.

Support from Transcript:

  • In Zurich the Kingdom Christians taught “the need for a holy, disciplined church, not a state church that included everyone who lived within the state.”
  • Bercot says, “We first have to be born again so that we can enter the Kingdom of God,” and then “grow as a branch on the vine of Jesus.”
  • He contrasts systems where the new birth is “part of the whole mechanical process” with Anabaptists who began with “the new birth, including a personal commitment to the Kingdom of Christ.”
  • The demanded faith is active: “True, evangelical faith cannot lie dormant… it clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry…”
  • The Anabaptists are described as “obedient members of his church,” putting on Christ and manifesting his Spirit “in all their conduct.”
Discussion Follow-ups If membership required visible obedience and commitment, what would change about how we count “growth”? How might discipline redefine what we mean by “unity”?