|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 14:29:39 GMT -5
Hi All---------------- Armitage states... Hi Knucks, Thank you for their perspective. Do you have any secular non-biased sources? Pax |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 19, 2008 16:30:25 GMT -5
Gottfried Arnold. In his extensive work, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie is the only secular source of ana-baptist history I know of--a lot of what churches post as historic records ore taken from his work though this account traces the roots of the Mennonites and not the Baptist per say it goes back to Montanus and Tertullian and the Apostolic church.
much love------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 16:52:48 GMT -5
Gottfried Arnold. In his extensive work, Unparteyische Kirchen- und Ketzer-Historie is the only secular source of ana-baptist history I know of--a lot of what churches post as historic records ore taken from his work though this account traces the roots of the Mennonites and not the Baptist per say it goes back to Montanus and Tertullian and the Apostolic church. much love------------knuckle Isn't he a Lutheran Theologian? |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 19, 2008 17:39:19 GMT -5
Not at the time,no but his studies of church history and theology moved him to become one
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on May 19, 2008 18:27:07 GMT -5
Uhmmmmmmm, so would ana-baptists today claim to be derived from the anabaptist church of the 2 century AD?
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 19, 2008 18:37:23 GMT -5
The Baptists and Mennonites do
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 20:39:14 GMT -5
Wait a minute...didnt' JHardin say that they "were'nt"?  |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on May 19, 2008 20:53:40 GMT -5
I wasn't quoting JHardin I was stating what the Baptists and Mennonites say about their own origins----they both claim to be the only remaining ana-baptists left.
much love------------knuckle
|
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 19, 2008 21:15:09 GMT -5
Cepha... Why did you edit my post #16 instead of simply replying to it in the usual manner? In doing so, you cut out much of my reply to you, and made it look like I am opposing my own arguments.  You must have hit the "Modify" button instead of the "Quote" button. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 19, 2008 21:22:08 GMT -5
Wait a minute...didnt' JHardin say that they "were'nt"? No, that's not what I said. I said that the Mennonites had their beginning from Smyth's Church in Amsterdam... that's a fact, at the time Smyth's Church was literally referred to as an Anabaptist Church. Knuckle is right, the Mennonites as well as the Old Brethren and some other sects believe they are the true remnant of the Anabaptist movement which actually began with the first Churches in the book of Acts. I'm not so much a successionist like these groups... so I'm not going to claim a direct line of Baptism from the Apostles. But, as Knuckle said as he quoted Armitage... the true Anabaptists are those who predominately agree on matters of faith and practice. These would include the first Churches and the Apostolic Fathers, the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Waldensians, and others. It really doesn't matter if we can trace a direct line of succession through these groups... we agree on Biblical doctrine. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 21:25:19 GMT -5
I wasn't quoting JHardin I was stating what the Baptists and Mennonites say about their own origins----they both claim to be the only remaining ana-baptists left. much love------------knuckle I know you weren't quoting him, but I was just confused because I heard two different versions of history. Which one is the truth? Maybe I misunderstood him. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 21:48:50 GMT -5
See, now I'm cofused again...if they are all Anabaptists, why the distinguishing title of " true Anabaptists"? If they all agree on Biblical Doctrine, then why aren't they one church? And where did they get their Bible Doctrines from? And why does agreement on Bbilical Doctrine matter more than a direct line of succession to those Jesus put in authority to teach us those Biblical Doctrines especially since they existed before The Bible did? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 22:01:03 GMT -5
|
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 19, 2008 22:03:20 GMT -5
See, now I'm cofused again...if they are all Anabaptists, why the distinguishing title of " true Anabaptists"? I know of Churches who claim to be descendants of anabaptists, but practice infant baptism. They would not be true anabaptists. Because one of the distinctives of (ana) Baptists, is "independent Churches"... which is a biblical practice. Ummmmm.... from the Bible, where else?  Jesus didn't put into authority a direct line of succession to teach Biblical doctrines. People are put into place to teach, but there doesn't need to be a line of succession to do so... that is, unless you believe that God is incapable of teaching someone by His Holy Spirit. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 19, 2008 22:10:10 GMT -5
We were very closely in agreement with them when they had their beginning in Holland... but in the last 300 years they have become very legalistic. Well, apparently, it does...according to you; The Mennonites have their roots in the anabaptist movement... but we are nowhere connected to them doctrinally now, nor were we connected to them doctrinally in the early days of AmericaWill the "real" Mennonites please stand up? Like I said, the succession doesn't matter... so as far as I'm concerned the mennonites don't have anything in common with me today. But I can relate to their doctrine 400 - 500 years ago. We can say that we each had our roots in the anabaptist movement... but modernly, we don't have anything in common now. So succession carries no weight at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 22:22:38 GMT -5
Mennonite From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Mennonites are a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons (1496–1561), though his teachings were a relatively minor influence on the group. As one of the historic peace churches, Mennonites are committed to nonviolence, nonviolent resistance/reconciliation, and pacifism. There are about 1.5 million Mennonites worldwide as of 2006.[1] Mennonite congregations worldwide embody the full scope of Mennonite practice from old fashioned 'plain' people to those who are indistinguishable in dress and appearance from the general population. The largest population of Mennonites is in the United States and Democratic Republic of Congo, but Mennonites can also be found in tight-knit communities in at least 51 countries on six continents or scattered amongst the populace of those countries. Mennonites have an international distinction among Christian denominations in disaster relief and place a strong theological emphasis on voluntary service. Mennonite Disaster Service,[2] based in North America, provides both immediate and long-term responses to hurricanes, floods, and other disasters. Mennonite Central Committee provides disaster relief around the world alongside their long-term international development programs. Other programs offer a variety of relief efforts and services throughout the world. In the last few decades some Mennonite groups have also become more actively involved with peace and social justice issues, helping to found Christian Peacemaker Teams and Mennonite Conciliation Service.[3]  If you would've told me they were the forefathers of The Amish, it would've been so much easier for me to know who they were. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 22:29:26 GMT -5
Yeah...I also remember you saying this..."The Mennonites have their roots in the anabaptist movement... but we are nowhere connected to them doctrinally now, nor were we connected to them doctrinally in the early days of America"...then this..."It really doesn't matter if we can trace a direct line of succession through these groups... we agree on Biblical doctrine." ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 22:39:15 GMT -5
You're right...that would place them in line with orthodox Christianity.
Not according to Paul who taught that strict adherence to doctrine as taught by The Apostles was what all the Churches were supposed to do. Those who invented their own independent doctrines were warned by Paul.
How? If the Bible didn't exist when The Apostles were around?
Jesus also didn't quote from The Book of Romans, yet we adhere to those teachings right? Why? Because an Apostle wrote it and taught it...an Apostle who did "not" walk with Jesus, but who was ordained to teach.
And Jesus did give The Apostles all the authority He had. They succeeded Jesus as teachers when He left.
And Jesus couldn't give authority to teach The Bible...The Bible did'nt exist when Jesus walked The Earth.
According to that line of thinking, because Jesus didn't talk about making altar calls or about computers, one could not believe in those things either.
Oh, and in John 21, Jesus gave Peter the commission to take over His role as a Shepherd to His flock.
So I guess that The Ethiopian didn't need Philip after all to reveal what The Scriptures meant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 19, 2008 22:47:20 GMT -5
Absolutely! What that has to do with those who we gave the ability to live free from England too turning on us is beyond me. It looks like The South didn't appreciate their freedom. Look at how they repayed us. And the difference is that The South was trying to be just like England...they were forcing their will upon a people just like England had done to us...but The United States of America, being founded on the priciples that all men are created equal put a stop to that. Thank God! Yeah...it was thier culture to enslave people. They had the dillusion that they were superior and that they had to raise Africans as if the Africans were little ignorant children (something that was proven false with every African who escaped and made it to the North where they could pursue and education and prove that mentality wrong). Never...you made the allusion yourself. All I pointed out was that all KKK were Baptists. Period. And that's a tradition that lives on today. It's not a slight on Baptists. Baptists were wrong themselves for reasons outside of their approval and misconceived notion of slavery (all those who were Southern Baptists who were outside of the official membership of The Klan). They didn't have to be "in" The Klan to be wrong. Those who agreed "with" The Klan were just as guilty and when it came down to it, they took up arms against The United States of America. 500 out of 25 Million is "many" to you? Wow. That's like .05% isn't it? Not even a blip on the radar except to those affected by it. And completely irrelevant to the conversation, why? Because what brought about your statement wasn't based on anything in the conversation. I never attacked Southern Baptists...I was attacking The Klan. If I really wanted to attack Baptists, I would've posted the 3,500 incidents of sexual abuse of children that go on in their churches on a yearly bases (at least, those are the ones that have actually been reported to the insurance companies). I was talking about The Klan, you were the one who brought in The Clergy. The only thing silly were your attempts at this "put yourself in their shoes" mentality to try to justify what The South did and their support by so-called christians (small "c" because I wouldn't soil Jesus' Title with their ilk). To me, they are no better than The Spanish Inquisitioners or those dummies who thought that they were "civilizing" The Native Americans when they came here and raped their women and murdered their children. All wrong.
MY APOLOGIES TO JHARDIN. IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE I'VE DONE BEFORE. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 20, 2008 0:46:07 GMT -5
DISCLAIMER: I HIT THE MODIFY BUTTON INSTEAD OF THE QUOTE BUTTON ACCIDENTALLY ERASING THE ORIGINAL POST. THE TEXT IN QUOTES ARE JHARDIN'S WORDS AND THE OTHER WORDS ARE MINE.
MY APOLOGIES TO JHARDIN. IT WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE I'VE DONE BEFORE. No problem Cepha. After I asked the question I realized that you, as the administrator, must have a "modify" link at the top of every post. It would be easy to make the mistake of hitting the wrong button. |
|
