...Because they split the church and disrupted society based on false doctrines: anti-paedobaptism, anti-authority, egalitarianism, and what some in modern times have called the SOLO Scriptura principle: That is, "forget about church history, it's just me and my Bible-ism."
I think we need to remember that the term Anabaptist is a broad category. Not all of the Anabaptist were sola scriptura or held to a separation between the church and the state. One example that fits both of these criteria is with the Münster Rebellion. Private mysterious prophecies were elevated higher then scripture, and not just with John Matthys. It was also the case with the Zwickau prophets in 1521-22. Thomas Muntzer was influenced by these crazy charismatic figures and was a leading figure in the Peasant Revolt of 1525 (about 10 years prior to the Münster Rebellion). These rebellions showed not a desire to separate the church and the state, but instead to violently reform it to their own understanding and practice. A separation between the two was not really an issue, but a response against the subjecting themselves to the reformation of Luther and Zwingli sponsored by the city leaders, and also against Roman Catholic control. In other words there was a desire to have more freedom and the willingness to fight for that freedom, instead of accepting their current rulers. It is for that reason why these groups tried to flock together and form their own society in a similar fashion as the Amish and Mennonites, who are both descended from Anabaptist movement. And as you can see with the Amish today there isn’t a strong separation from the church and the state, the two are interconnected closely.
The act of polygamy was introduced by charismatic visions of God in the city of Münster and was reinforced by a similar sect of Anabaptists founded by Jan van Batenburg.
I would make the argument that mysticistic, Pentecostal like, practices overshadowed their doctrine of scripture and thus raised personal religious experience over the scripture and the church. These practices were seen by reformers like Luther and Calvin and saw it as heresies, similar to that practiced by Rome and to some degree worst. It is for that reason the “its just me and my Bible” critique would not really be a valid representation of the Anabaptist as a whole.
We as Baptist have not really studied the Anabaptist and some hold to them, wrongfully I would add, as brothers under a trail of blood theory; without really looking at the theology and practices of such groups. I would also add that some people today would be attracted to their various practices of personal works righteousness principle compared to a imputed righteousness, evangelical and Pentecostal behaviors (healings, visions, still quite voice of God, and speaking in tongues), and one kingdom approach of conquering the world for Christ (outside of a strict preaching of the Gospel).
I think it is also important to add that baptism in the minds of Luther and Calvin were closely connected to the one faith in Christ. Rebaptism would be a rejection of that objective one faith in Christ and the Gospel, as related to the universal church, instead to have it replaced by the feelings of personal religious experience grounding the reason for baptism. And I do think we see that today in Baptist circles, instead of completely on the confession of faith.
---------- Post added at 03:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ----------
John, I assuming your reading 1535 edition. You need to understand that Luther was writing against the Anabaptist for well over ten years at that point (14 if you include the Zwickau prophets). So his readers knew the positions and beliefs well of the Anabaptists and more specifically the Bohemians regarding baptism. It is for that reason he may not of said as much as he could have.
