Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

If Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church in Boston, as you say, the common accusation that Finny prevented/opposed/resisted an Anabaptist church from starting in Boston is a false accusation.

Whether Finny's approach to another church starting in Boston as a split-off from FOTW was the correct response is another matter for discussion. But there have been frequent references in this very thread to the idea that Finny, in some form, prevented a Mennonite/Anabaptist church from starting, when it turns out that that never happened.

Ernie did not say that Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church in Boston. Also, he said his impression is that Finny would not have opposed a BMA type church from starting in Boston.

Talk about false accusations.....

Ernie is not the only person speaking in this thread, and there have been numerous references here to the idea that Finny prevented an Anabaptist/Mennonite church from starting. I'm not saying Ernie is falsely accusing Finny. But if what Ernie is saying is true, then whomever is saying that Finny prevented an Anabaptist church from starting is accusing Finny of something Finny did not do.

If you don't believe me, just search this thread for the word "church."

It has been said as recently as this month.

[Josh]

If Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church in Boston, as you say, the common accusation that Finny prevented/opposed/resisted an Anabaptist church from starting in Boston is a false accusation.

Whether Finny's approach to another church starting in Boston as a split-off from FOTW was the correct response is another matter for discussion. But there have been frequent references in this very thread to the idea that Finny, in some form, prevented a Mennonite/Anabaptist church from starting, when it turns out that that never happened.

Ernie did not say that Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church in Boston. Also, he said his impression is that Finny would not have opposed a BMA type church from starting in Boston.

Talk about false accusations.....

Ernie is not the only person speaking in this thread, and there have been numerous references here to the idea that Finny prevented an Anabaptist/Mennonite church from starting. I'm not saying Ernie is falsely accusing Finny. But if what Ernie is saying is true, then whomever is saying that Finny prevented an Anabaptist church from starting is accusing Finny of something Finny did not do.

If you don't believe me, just search this thread for the word "church."

It has been said as recently as this month.

It is generally accepted as fact that President Taylor and the former dean of students were going to help start a church that students would feel comfortable going to, and the Finny Kiravilla opppsed this to the point both of those men resigned.

I consider Mr Taylor someone of high integrity and would believe him at his word. Other people have likewise vouched for the former dean of students.

Dr Kuravilla hasn’t actually spoken about this or issued a statement at all so I have no idea what his first hand account or opinion is.

[ken_sylvania]

So are you saying that Dean never intended to start a Mennonite church at all?

Correct. Although if some Mennonite group within Dean's parameters would have wanted to come in and start a church, he would have gotten behind it. Since no other Mennonite group was interested in planting a church in Boston, Dean decided to plant one himself in south Boston where no FOTW churches were located.

That's exactly what Ernie said.

ME: So are you saying that Dean never intended to start a Mennonite church at all?
ERNIE: Correct.

How is this a false accusation?

Art thou a master in Sattler, and knowest not the difference between Mennonite, Brethren, "Kingdom Christian", and Anabaptist?
You are accusing Ernie of saying that Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church, when in fact he said Dean didn't intend to start a Mennonite church but would have liked to start a "kingdom christian" church.

[brothereicher]

Correct. Although if some Mennonite group within Dean's parameters would have wanted to come in and start a church, he would have gotten behind it. Since no other Mennonite group was interested in planting a church in Boston, Dean decided to plant one himself in south Boston where no FOTW churches were located.

That's exactly what Ernie said.

ME: So are you saying that Dean never intended to start a Mennonite church at all?
ERNIE: Correct.

How is this a false accusation?

Art thou a master in Sattler, and knowest not the difference between Mennonite, Brethren, "Kingdom Christian", and Anabaptist?
You are accusing Ernie of saying that Dean never intended to start an Anabaptist church, when in fact he said Dean didn't intend to start a Mennonite church but would have liked to start a "kingdom christian" church.

I'm not accusing Ernie of making false accusations, as I've already stated.

[Ken]

My understanding was one of the goals was to form a church where BMA and Keystone type of students would feel comfortable (and their parents and ministers back home would also feel comfortable with it). That left a lot of room for differences like weekly communion but didn’t leave space for “one true church” teaching, belief that full immersion baptism is required for salvation, nor the teaching that there can only be one true church in a given city and that a second church that starts in the same city is illegitimate.

Is the above highlighted text an actual doctrine of FOTW?

If so, seems rather problematic, not to mention ridiculous in a city as large as Boston.

[brothereicher]

My understanding was one of the goals was to form a church where BMA and Keystone type of students would feel comfortable (and their parents and ministers back home would also feel comfortable with it). That left a lot of room for differences like weekly communion but didn’t leave space for “one true church” teaching, belief that full immersion baptism is required for salvation, nor the teaching that there can only be one true church in a given city and that a second church that starts in the same city is illegitimate.

Is the above highlighted text an actual doctrine of FOTW?

If so, seems rather problematic, not to mention ridiculous in a city as large as Boston.

FOTW doesn't believe any of those things.
Not the "one true church" idea.
Not the "full-immersion is required for salvation" idea.
Not the "other churches are illegitimate" idea.

I don't expect that my denial is going to stop these claims from continuing to be made here. But I thought you should know.

[ken_sylvania]

One of the issues with a church refusing to provide a written statement of doctrine is that people have to rely on what the leaders of the church say verbally to determine what the church believes, along with interpreting the actions taken by the church. If Finny says one thing, and brothereicher says another thing, how are we to know what FOTW's position actually is?

[brothereicher]

One of the issues with a church refusing to provide a written statement of doctrine is that people have to rely on what the leaders of the church say verbally to determine what the church believes, along with interpreting the actions taken by the church. If Finny says one thing, and brothereicher says another thing, how are we to know what FOTW's position actually is?

Well, I'm not part of FOTW, so I'd go with Finny over me, as far as that goes.

But I've had enough conversations to be certain that this is not what FOTW teaches.

[Judas Maccabeus]

My understanding was one of the goals was to form a church where BMA and Keystone type of students would feel comfortable (and their parents and ministers back home would also feel comfortable with it). That left a lot of room for differences like weekly communion but didn’t leave space for “one true church” teaching, belief that full immersion baptism is required for salvation, nor the teaching that there can only be one true church in a given city and that a second church that starts in the same city is illegitimate.

Is the above highlighted text an actual doctrine of FOTW?

If so, seems rather problematic, not to mention ridiculous in a city as large as Boston.

FOTW doesn't believe any of those things.
Not the "one true church" idea.
Not the "full-immersion is required for salvation" idea.
Not the "other churches are illegitimate" idea.

I don't expect that my denial is going to stop these claims from continuing to be made here. But I thought you should know.

I have heard and published that they require a “valid “ baptism to be saved. Millioi made a half baked attempt to refute the historic Mennonite view on this matter, and we know that FOTW only baptized by immersion. So that conclusion is a logical step.

SO if what you are saying is true, let FOTW publish it openly. In writing . Otherwise all we are hearing is an employee trying to cover for his boss.

Let them bring this into the open. If they don’t, then people are free to try and piece together what they can.

I suspect the “apostles “ of FOTW won’t. That leaves anyone free to try their best to figure it out, not making their teaching available to the larger community site does not help. If we see no denial forthcoming, we could conclude it is true.

[brothereicher]

Is the above highlighted text an actual doctrine of FOTW?

If so, seems rather problematic, not to mention ridiculous in a city as large as Boston.

FOTW doesn't believe any of those things.
Not the "one true church" idea.
Not the "full-immersion is required for salvation" idea.
Not the "other churches are illegitimate" idea.

I don't expect that my denial is going to stop these claims from continuing to be made here. But I thought you should know.

I have heard and published that they require a “valid “ baptism to be saved. Millioi made a half baked attempt to refute the historic Mennonite view on this matter, and we know that FOTW only baptized by immersion. So that conclusion is a logical step.

SO if what you are saying is true, let FOTW publish it openly. In writing . Otherwise all we are hearing is an employee trying to cover for his boss.

Let them bring this into the open. If they don’t, then people are free to try and piece together what they can.

I suspect the “apostles “ of FOTW won’t. That leaves anyone free to try their best to figure it out, not making their teaching available to the larger community site does not help. If we see no denial forthcoming, we could conclude it is true.

I'm not employed by FOTW, so any defense of them is just because I have a lot of respect for them.

No one from either Sattler or FOTW has asked me to be here, and I'm not acting in any official capacity on this thread.

I think that your "logical conclusion" is a spectacular logical leap. Having a preferred method of baptism doesn't make other baptisms invalid.

Mennonites baptize exclusively by pouring, but recognize other valid baptisms. (Example of an invalid baptism would be infant baptism.)

I think it's also odd to believe that something must be true since someone somewhere didn't specifically deny it.

One could make preposterous claims all day long faster than anyone could deny them.

As of this morning, FOTW's YouTube channel has over 300 videos on it, so it's odd to claim that they are "not making their teachings available."