Skip to content

Add your phone number?

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

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up  /  Chapter 18: The Anabaptist Fire  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 8
The Anabaptists refused retaliation, refused the sword “either for protection or for executing criminals,” and refused to take oaths “in obedience to Jesus’ words”; which of these teachings feels most unrealistic or dangerous to you, and what does your reaction reveal about what you believe God will (or won’t) do for His people?
Another way to ask: Which Anabaptist teaching seems most unrealistic or risky to you: no retaliation, no sword even for protection or punishment, or no oaths because of Jesus’ words? What does your reaction show about what you think God will (or won’t) do for His people?

Direct Answer Bercot presents these teachings as straightforward obedience to Jesus, even when it leads to vulnerability and suffering. If any of them feels “unrealistic,” the transcript pushes us to ask whether we trust God’s kingdom ethics more than we trust coercive power, self-defense, or socially accepted guarantees.

Support from Transcript:

  • He states they “refused to fight back or retaliate against their persecutors,” even while being hunted and executed.
  • “Like the early Christians,” they “refused to use the sword… either for protection or for executing criminals.”
  • “In obedience to Jesus’ words, they refused to take oaths.”
  • The Dirk Willems account illustrates the cost of non-retaliation and mercy: helping an enemy led to arrest and death.
  • Bercot ties their whole stance to the two-kingdom conviction: Christians “cannot serve two masters,” and Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world.”
Discussion Follow-ups Do our instincts show we believe God protects mainly through state power and force, or through faithful obedience even when it includes suffering?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10
Back Questions Next