Comparing Aquinas Teachings And The Anabaptists

Throughout the many years of Christianity, there have been numerous theologians who have attempted to copiously interpret Scripture in the means of guiding a society through God’s teachings. One of these theologians is St. Thomas Aquinas and another group of thinkers were the Anabaptists; both of whom shared fairly different views on how a just society should act. In order to compare these two distinct views of Scripture, I will state the Anabaptists’ perspectives, principally on legitimate war and violence, and then contrast them with Aquinas’s teachings followed by a discussion of the background context on their time periods and how both of them employ Scripture or previous thinkers in their writings in respective alternation. In short, the

Anabaptists followed Jesus anti-violence teachings strictly and they believed the Sword, the coercive power of the state, or any form of law was not for them; only for everyone else. Whereas, Aquinas predominantly believed in rightful intention and the benefit of the community when it came to war and violence which he allowed under those circumstances.
Concerning the Anabaptists position on violence, they sternly did not advocate any form of violence due to following Jesus’s life examples, declaring themselves the only true Christians, and as a result they did not believe in the Sword or any type of authority; the only punishments they held were public discipline and excommunication. The Anabaptists did not regard the Sword in their community mainly because “Christ teaches…us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls” (Leith 288). Therefore, they wanted to exactly follow Jesus’s approach to life which also led to their reason for not needing any law or Sword. Since the Anabaptists believed they were the true Christians in the world, they thought there would never be any use for law or authority simply because they were the true Christians, the perfection of Christ. However, they did acknowledge the Sword’s presence outside of their faith through the statement “the Sword is ordained of God…It punishes and puts to death the wicked, and guards…the good” (Leith 287) which emphasizes their disconnection from the outside world, the wicked. Overall, the Anabaptists considered themselves the only true Christians of their time through their firm dedication to Christ’s teachings which advocated them against any form of violence.
Viewing Aquinas’s stance on war and violence, he promoted that war and violence are acceptable under the conditions of rightful intention and the betterment of the community with the support of St. Augustine. Aquinas mentions his three conditions for just war in his Summa Theologica where he writes “First, the authority of the sovereign…Secondly, a just cause is required…Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention” (Aquinas Q.40 Art.1). Ultimately, these are Aquinas’s conditions for any violence to be acceptable because if they are not met then the violence is taking place due to one’s own individuality or greed. Evaluating this statement even further, Aquinas supports that human nature is dependent upon the effort of each individual because one can choose to follow or ignore the ordered law. In that case, if one individual is causing war then he is actually putting the community in risk of danger which doesn’t benefit anyone besides him. Aquinas does not support this primarily because of the time period he writes from, the society he lived in, and his connection to St. Augustine. On the whole, Aquinas relies on set conditions that determine whether or not an act of violence is legitimate to society.
The Anabaptists lived in a time period during the early Reformation, not too far from Luther posting his 95 theses, which was a time when everyone was searching for the proper or correct way to serve God.

The Reformation began primarily due to Luther and his vocal objections that Christians were not performing Christian duties; there was too much corruption. As a result, society began to pursue the right way to praise God and be Christian so everyone had this idea of “my faith is the right faith” in this time. Consequently, the Anabaptists were one of the early Reformers and they had more extreme views, such as their separation from the outside world or their literal interpretation of Jesus’s teachings on violence, which they believed to be the precise and correct method in praising God. This further supports their stance of them asserting themselves as “the true Christians” simply because they believe their faith is the correct faith, therefore nobody else’s can be. The context of their thinking heavily influences their ideals because they strived in a time where everyone was conveying their own beliefs; thus the Anabaptists had to stick firmly to their

own.
On the other hand, Aquinas lived in an ordered Roman civilization that strived for progress and relied strongly on hierarchy to function properly which are the rationales of Aquinas’s organized and structured teachings. The Roman Empire was built upon the essence of hierarchy, an organization of ranked officials and common people, in which everyone knew their place and worked towards the common good. In a like manner, Aquinas organized his writings in structured questions and articles with objections and responses to objections. Furthermore, anything that was not for the advancement of society or one’s neighbor, he deemed illegitimate largely due to his time frame. When war met all of Aquinas’s just conditions then he vouched for it because it was beneficial to the community as a whole. In his time, Aquinas advocated for the progression of society in an effort to improve individuals’ intentions in a collective manner. If everyone worked towards a better community, then neighbors would be helping neighbors and everyone would have the same or at least similar intentions of doing so. After viewing the historical context of Aquinas, one can understand why he continually advocates for the common good and the rightful intentions of doing so, because he knows that in doing just that society will have order which leads to progress.
Employing Scripture in their teachings, the Anabaptists created their seven articles and used textual Scripture to support each of their articles, their set social codes they lived according to.

For example, when they created their second article, the “ban”, their reasoning for it was that “The [offender] shall be admonished twice in secret and the third time openly disciplined or banned…Matt 18” (Leith 285). Therefore, they created rules to live by and searched for Scriptural support that affirmed its validity, or vice versa, but hand in hand. Having Scriptural support in their articles, they followed Jesus strictly and took the literal meanings of his teachings, such as no violence whatsoever at any time. This also gave them further reason to believe that their faith was correct and proper when many doubted them. With that being said, even though the Anabaptists did have relatively extreme views on some practices in their faith, they did have Scriptural support which they applied to each of their teachings in order to authenticate

them.
In contrast to the Anabaptists, Aquinas used some Scriptural support in his writing, but he mainly drew upon the ideologies of St. Augustine to validate his responses to each question he answered. Aquinas would reference Scripture at times, but he would easily reference Augustine when he stated his personal views. Furthermore, Aquinas’s central concepts to his thinking stemmed from Augustine. Seeing as though Augustine viewed love as order, so does Aquinas view order as a necessary means for the advancement of society. However, there is some debate between the two on certain concerns, such as whether or not Christians need reason to obtain a higher; something of which Aquinas agreed to and Augustine disagreed to. In total, Aquinas’s thinking reflects Augustine’s in that both of them believe in human effort and order, but Aquinas takes Augustine’s ideologies a step further in his own distinct direction.
Altogether, the Anabaptists believed that any form of violence was unacceptable at any time due to their strict following of Christ’s anti-violence teachings whereas Aquinas argued that under certain conditions war and violence are necessary in order for a community to strive, as long as the battle is under rightful intentions for that community. As a final note, the points that were made in this paper have significance due to the fact that they all overlap each other. In order to understand each of their positions on violence and war, one must understand the background of that person or group in the time they were from, and it also helps to understand where or who they formulate their beliefs from; what their source is.