Tag Archives: sacrament



Beheaded for Christ


On June 13th 1560, Hans Mandemaker, Pastor: together with, Deacon: and Eustachius Kuter. were condemned to death. At the passing of the sentence, a great number of people were present as they addressed the judges of the court and the jury, proving to them that the sentence, in the presence of God, passed upon innocent men, would rise up in judgment against them to their condemnation for having condemned innocent blood. When they replied that they were obliged to judge according to the emperor’s command and proclamation, Hans Mandemaker said, “O ye blind judges! You are to judge according to your own heart and conscience, as you will have to answer for it in the presence of God. If then you judge and pass sentence, according to the emperor’s proclamation, how will you answer before God?”


They all spake with boldness and exhorted the people to repent, to forsake their sins, and to tread the path of truth; it was the truth for which this day they would suffer. Their crime: they did not believe that the holy body of Jesus Christ was in the sacrament but they observed the Lord’s Supper in the same manner that Christ kept it with His disciples, and that they did not approve of infant baptism.


Kuter was first beheaded, after which Juriaen Raek stepped cheerfully forward to the executioner and said, “Here I leave wife and child, house and goods, body and life, for the sake and truth of God.”


Dr. Dale R. Hart: From: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I. (Thompson/Cummins) p. 243.


The post 164 – June 13 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST appeared first on The Trumpet Online.


1 Comment

Filed under Church History

161 — June 10 – This Day in Baptist History Past


Targets of Persecution


Annekin Hendriks – Anabaptist


On the 10th of June, 1535, a furious edict was published at Brussels. Death by fire was the punishment on all Baptists who should be detected and should refuse to abjure. If they recanted they were still to die, but not by fire; the men were to be put to death by the sword, ‘the women in a sunken pit.’ Those who resisted the operation of the edict by failing to deliver up Baptists [Anabaptists] to the authorities, were to suffer the same punishment as accomplices.”What a troublesome time in which to live! Religious freedom was unknown to Anabaptists, and they were forced to worship covertly, everywhere because informers were promised one-third of the confiscated estates of the dreaded Anabaptists!


Perhaps the actual wording of a portion of the edict might prove enlightening as to the pressures that our forefathers experienced.


“In order to provide against and remedy the errors and seductions which many sectaries and authors of mischief, with their followers, have dared to sow and spread in our possessions, in opposition to our holy Christian faith, the sacraments and commands of the holy church our mother; we have at various times decreed…many mandates containing statutes, edicts, ordinances, together with punishments that transgressors should suffer; in order that by such means the common and simple people might guard themselves against the aforesaid errors and abuses, and that their chief promoters might be punished and corrected as an example to all.


And it, having come to our knowledge, that…many and various sectaries, even some who are denominated Anabaptist or rebaptizers, have promoted…their said abuses and errors, in order to mislead the same…to the great scandal and contempt of the sacrament of holy baptism, and of our edicts, statutes, and ordinances:


Therefore, being desirous to provide against and remedy the same, we summon and command, that, from this time…you make proclamation in all the parts of limits of your jurisdiction, that all who are, or shall be found to be, infected by the cursed sect of Anabaptists, or rebaptizers, of what state or condition they may be, abettors, followers, and accomplices, shall suffer the forfeiture of life and estate, and shall without delay, be brought to the severest punishment.”


There are several other paragraphs of the edict, but this example is typical of the many edicts issued by the Roman Catholic and even Protestant leaders who harmonized only at the point of persecuting the re-baptizers. Catholics and some reformers believed that “re-baptism” was a repudiation of the baptism by the state church, which they considered salvation. Anabaptists did not accept “sacramental grace” and “infant sprinkling.” They denied that they were re-baptizers at all! Thank God for grace in Christ and the privilege of obeying His ordinance as a testimony! Praise the Lord for our glorious freedom of religion and liberty of conscience to serve Him without man’s dictates!


Dr. Dale R. Hart:: Adapted from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I. (Thompson/ Cummins) pp. 239 -240.



Leave a comment

Filed under Church History


I Corinthians 11:17-34; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20

There are those that say they love the Lord and want to be more like Jesus. There are those that call themselves Christian but want to ignore the very things that qualify them for that title. There are those that literally deny the authority of God’s Word by ignoring the plain teachings of those words. Yes we are talking about the LORD’S SUPPER. Notice, it is not the churches supper to do with what the church decides. It is not an individual’s decision who is invited and how to observe it because it is the LORD’S SUPPER.

If you decided to have a formal sit down dinner for your most intimate friends, and carefully laid a menu that was very elaborate; carefully selected the invitations for beauty of color and design, numbered your chairs to invite the right amount of guests, then carefully fit all of this into your budget; your presumption would be that every thing you had prepared for was under your control and guidance. The theme of this dinner was the sacrifice that each friend had made for the sake of each one’s friendship. A distant cousin hears of this dinner prepared for intimate friends and decides they want to come to just be social and decide to invite a few of their friends; what would your reaction be? That action would totally destroy the very purpose, planning and budget of every thing you wanted to do. For that distant relative, their ignorance would be displayed, their narcissism would be exhibited, and their boorishness behavior would be made known to all.

The Lord wants us to do – Luke 6:46 “And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say.”  The Lord desires obedience. He does not need us deciding who to invite to HIS table. Simply follow and do what this lesson points out.

    a. TRANS-SUBSTANTIATION (Roman Catholic view) – That the elements of the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    b. CON-SUBSTANTIATION (Lutheran view) – That, while not actually becoming the body and blood of Jesus, in some mysterious way the real body and blood of Jesus, is so connected with the bread and wine as to be actually imparted to those who partake. This differs little with the Roman Catholic view.

    c. MYSTICAL PRESENCE (Presbyterian view) – Although they reject the previous views, they believe that in some mystical sense Jesus is spiritually present in the elements; that because of this the Lord’s Supper is a medium through which certain blessings are conferred.

    d. FIGURATIVE ONLY (Baptist view) – That nothing is conferred but that it is a symbolic ordinance depicting the death of Jesus; His body broken for us and His blood shed for us.


    a. Instituted by the Lord Himself, before His crucifixion (Matt. 26:26-29).

    b. Given to an institution, te churches (I Cor. 11:2; Matt. 28:20).

    c. Given to show the Lord’s death until He comes again (I Cor. 11:25,26).


    Who is responsible for this practice? It is based on division; a recognition of division, and a will to ignore that division so that all can partake together. It pretends a unity that does not exist. God is not the author of confusion or division among Christians (I Cor. 14:33), therefore cannot be its author.

    If Baptists are bigots for holding to closed/restricted communion then cannot others be charged likewise when they demand that we accept their views in order to allow them to participate? This restriction is not based on love but upon God’s standard. The decision to allow or not allow is not mine but the Lord’s.


    a. Who can come to the Lord’s table? Acts 2:41,42 gives the order of approach.
        1. Receive the Word.
        2. Be baptized.
        3. Become members of the church.
        4. Be faithful to the doctrines.
        5. Be in fellowship with the brethren.

    b. To be observed by the church as such (I Cor. 11:2,18). The church at Corinth was commanded to correct certain abuses before they could observe the Lord’s Supper properly (I Cor. 11:20).

    c. From this we gather that conditions governing participation are those governing church relationship, and that the ordinance is to be guarded by the church as well as presented to partakers (I Cor. 5:12,13).


    a. Restricted as to purpose or design (I Cor. 11:26).

    b. Restricted to baptized believers (Acts 2:41,42).

    c. Restricted to the discipline of the church, therefore none but members of the local church can partake (I Cor. 5:11; 11:18-20).

    d. Restricted to the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:41,42; I Cor. 11:21,22).

    e. Restricted to self-examination (I Cor. 11:28).

    f. Restricted to a united church (I Cor. 11:16-20).

    g. Restricted to the examination and will of the church (I Cor. 5:11-13). Simply put – if you are not a member of the church that is observing the Lord’s Supper, that church has no authority over you and therefore you have no right to observe the Lord’s Supper with them. By the way, don’t be like one preacher that said to me, “I am not sure this is the Lord’s Supper in verse 11.” This only reveals a persons ignorance because there is only one supper that the Lord observes. If this is not the Lord’s Supper, there are many family and friends that we would not be able to eat with socially.

    h. Restricted to the elements used. FRUIT OF THE VINE and unleavened bread (Matt. 26:29; I Cor. 5:6-8). That doesn’t say wine does it.

This privilege is open to all who meet the conditions imposed by God. The Supper is closed only to those who have no scriptural right to eat it. The Lord did not give an ordinance that is impossible to keep, therefore it should be observed.


Technorati Tags: , , , ,