Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Post Reply
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by cmbl »

Neto wrote: But not all Evangelicals are Calvinists, either, at least I would consider the FreeWill Baptists I knew years ago to be Evangelicals. So I don’t know how helpful all this is.
True. Categorizing based on Calvinism, there are Evangelicals who...
1. Are Calvinist
2. Are not Calvinist but believe in eternal security
3. Are not Calvinist and do not believe in eternal security
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Neto wrote:
MaxPC wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote: Doubt it. From his own words, he did not have much of an education.

J.M.
I wondered: according to some historic records he was ordained a priest.

Of course in that era, highly educated meant they could read, write and keep financial accounts - very basic stuff unlike the heavy philosophical, theological, Greek & Latin course load expected of seminarians today.
My impression is that he down-played his education, and it would depend on who he was being compared to. I suspect that there were some priests who had much more training, and others, perhaps many, who had less.
He sure did not have very much Bible

""I write to you the truth in Christ, and lie not. In the year 1524, being then in my twenty eighth year, I undertook the duties of a [Catholic] priest in my father’s village, called Pingjum, in Friesland. Two other persons of about my age, also officiated in the same station. The one was my pastor, and was well learned in part; the other succeeded me; both had read the scriptures partially; but I had not touched them during my life, for I feared, if I should read them they would mislead me. Behold! such a stupid preacher was I, for nearly two years.""

Must not have been a required subject.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

cmbl wrote:
Neto wrote: But not all Evangelicals are Calvinists, either, at least I would consider the FreeWill Baptists I knew years ago to be Evangelicals. So I don’t know how helpful all this is.
True. Categorizing based on Calvinism, there are Evangelicals who...
1. Are Calvinist
2. Are not Calvinist but believe in eternal security
3. Are not Calvinist and do not believe in eternal security
Not to mention the entire Holiness moment, as well as many Pentecostals.

Neto might remember from his St. Paul days that eternal security is nowhere in the Christian and Missionary Alliance statement of faith either.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Sudsy »

Neto wrote:
Sudsy wrote:From the majority of Anabaptists I know, they would not be in tune with the side of Evangelicalism that teach the TULIP theology.

Most Anabaptists I know would say that, although we are depraved from the fall we still have the ability to chose God's gift of salvation or reject it. That God draws us to Himself but He does not cause us to chose Him by first changing our hearts in such a way that we could ever reject Him. Upon this choice to chose God, we are born again. If we hang onto our belief in Christ and never apostasize, in the end, we will be saved. Some might say we also must live out some degree of obedience to stay saved but I have yet to hear when this obedience is enough so assurance of salvation is pretty ify.

Those evangelicals that follow the TULIP theology might put it this way - First we are so depraved from the fall, none of us would ever chose God by our own chosing. Our sinning deserves hell but God has predetermined to save some of us from this hell. So TULIP theology emphasizes God's soverignity and believes God has chosen, before the world existed, to save certain people while others not. Salvation is considered all of God in the sense that God choses/predetermines/elects certain individuals from among us and He changes their hearts, at some point in time, to chose Him back. Our new hearts could never resist His grace. Jesus really paid the penalty of sin for these He chose to save. Since salvation is all a work of God, God will save everyone who makes this choice from the new heart He gave them to chose Him. They are eternally secure and can never lose their salvation.

Putting it in these terms, I have only met one Anabaptist so far who agree that is how and who God saves. But I am told there are more Anabaptists who believe the same or something very close to that. I just haven't run across them. My guess is that the majority of Anabaptists on this forum do not believe in the Evangelical TULIP theology.
It seems to me that anabaptism is pretty well diametrically opposed to TULIP. If I'm correct, then the only way a Mennonite could be a Calvinist is if they are not a good either of them. I do, however agree with some of what they say, I just don't come to the same conclusions, and they would probably say I am just playing with words to say I agree with any of it, playing with THEIR words.

Total Depravity
Are we totally depraved, unable in and of ourselves to take any step toward God? I would say so. It is only because God is so gracious that he sent his Son (who willingly came) to die for us that we ever have an opportunity to believe. By one man sin entered into the world, and all men are condemned. But by one man all are saved. I believe that because God is gracious, no one is condemned for inherited sin (‘original sin”). Jesus, by his death & resurrection took away that sin. For everyone, whether they have even heard his Name, the only Name through whom anyone can be saved or not. So our own sin determines our destiny.

Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
These two I do not agree with in the slightest. In the two times recorded when Jesus multiplied fish & bread, why did Jesus make more bread & fish than the people could eat? I believe that the meaning behind it is that God is so gracious that there is always more than enough. Jesus’ death & resurrection made the way for every person ever born to be saved, and then some.

Irresistible Grace
If God is perfect, then his grace is perfect too, because it is his character. So yes, God’s Grace MUST be irresistible. But he wants willing followers, so he allows us to resist the irresistible. If a person could force someone to love them, would it be love?

Perseverance of the Saints
Here I make something different of this. They think that any real saint will persevere, and if they don’t, they were never a saint. As I understand the Scripture, it is essential that the believer persevere, or he or she will not be saved in the end. But it is not the persevering that saves us. I know it sounds like it, but it isn’t.

But not all Evangelicals are Calvinists, either, at least I would consider the FreeWill Baptists I knew years ago to be Evangelicals. So I don’t know how helpful all this is.
Thanks Neto, I think the way you explained your view is quite similar to the Pentecostal view I grew up in. We are responsible for our own sinning. God in His soverignty has given man the freedom to chose to love and serve Him. God seeks after us and draws us to chose Him, yet allows us to make that choice before He regenerates us. And as the point you made, if God changes our hearts, when He decides to adopt us into His family and before we make any choice, so that we could not resist being adopted, then isn't this trying to force love. That doesn't make any sense to me either. I always argued it is not about whether God has the power to do what TULIP suggests but rather would a loving God use His power in this way. Because those He decides not to save, why send them to hell for not being what they could never be otherwise. From what I see throughout scripture, imo, God does not force love through the use of His power.

Regarding persevering to the end to 'stay saved' that was used in my upbringing to keep us in line as young people and all kinds of things were preached that you would not want to be caught in doing if the rapture took place or you could be left behind. We really had very insecure attitudes about dieing with some unconfessed sin in our lives. Imo, that was very wrong and we can have assurance we will be saved as we go through our battles of the flesh and the spirit. That is, if we are aware and fighting this battle.

However, scriptures can be used to support and not support TULIP theology. Scriptures do say we are chosen, elected, predestined and sealed. What is important with Evangelicals is that both teach evangelism. Both believe God uses us as means to other's salvation. Both believe the call to repent must go out to everyone. Both have believers experiencing God working in their midst. Both trully think the Holy Spirit is guiding their understandings. It is wonderful to me how despite our understandings on how God saves, He continues to build His Church.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14451
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Bootstrap »

Neto wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:According to mennosimons.net:
Menno may have received his training in a nearby monastery. He had some knowledge of the church fathers, knew Latin and a little Greek but no Hebrew.
Maybe this part is unconfirmed, but it has been my understanding that his parents left him at a monastery as a fairly young child, probably being unable to support him, or possibly as an act of devotion. So my impression has been that he was a poor monk, and that his 'education' would have been largely informal, out of his life-long exposure to monastery life.
I've heard that, Mennosimons.net says only this:
Little is known about Menno's childhood and home. His parents were probably dairy farmers. Menno may have received his training in a nearby monastery. He had some knowledge of the church fathers, knew Latin and a little Greek but no Hebrew.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by MaxPC »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Neto wrote:
MaxPC wrote: I wondered: according to some historic records he was ordained a priest.

Of course in that era, highly educated meant they could read, write and keep financial accounts - very basic stuff unlike the heavy philosophical, theological, Greek & Latin course load expected of seminarians today.
My impression is that he down-played his education, and it would depend on who he was being compared to. I suspect that there were some priests who had much more training, and others, perhaps many, who had less.
He sure did not have very much Bible

""I write to you the truth in Christ, and lie not. In the year 1524, being then in my twenty eighth year, I undertook the duties of a [Catholic] priest in my father’s village, called Pingjum, in Friesland. Two other persons of about my age, also officiated in the same station. The one was my pastor, and was well learned in part; the other succeeded me; both had read the scriptures partially; but I had not touched them during my life, for I feared, if I should read them they would mislead me. Behold! such a stupid preacher was I, for nearly two years.""

Must not have been a required subject.
J.M.
You're right, JM. In that era Scripture studies weren't always part of the curricula at some seminaries. That thinking came from a period in which the church provided a single source for Scripture interpretation and the priests were expected to simply pass that interpretation on in their homilies. It was a reaction to some of the heresies in the early history of the church.

During the Reformation the seminaries began to include Scripture studies in their curricula. Today it's a required study in all seminaries. Notable is the fact that I mentioned before: there are still differences between seminaries and some are more rigorously intense than others. Are we doing a better job? Only time and the Lord will reveal that :D
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Valerie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
He sure did not have very much Bible

""I write to you the truth in Christ, and lie not. In the year 1524, being then in my twenty eighth year, I undertook the duties of a [Catholic] priest in my father’s village, called Pingjum, in Friesland. Two other persons of about my age, also officiated in the same station. The one was my pastor, and was well learned in part; the other succeeded me; both had read the scriptures partially; but I had not touched them during my life, for I feared, if I should read them they would mislead me. Behold! such a stupid preacher was I, for nearly two years.""

Must not have been a required subject.

J.M.
Probably for the same reason that most Amish sects do not encourage their congregations to study the Bible- because they can be 'misled' by their own interpretations. I know this is why Catholics used to not encourage reading the Bible on your own lest you arrive at different conclusions, than the Church/Apostles taught. Indeed we do see this all around us, which is why there are thousands of sects.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14451
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Bootstrap »

Here's a problem I see with this kind of thread.

Anabaptism is not just one thing - whose brand of Anabaptism, where, at what time? So is Evangelicalism, though it's a shorter period of time.

Are we talking about Amish versus 5-point Calvinists? That would be a very different discussion than a comparison of CMC and Richard Hays.

Even if you look at a narrower group like Southern Baptists, they differ on basic issues we discussed here:
Nearly equal numbers of pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention consider their churches as Calvinist/Reformed as do Arminian/Wesleyan, although more than 60 percent are concerned about the effect of Calvinism on the denomination, according to a new survey from LifeWay Research.
So I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation unless we narrow it down to well-defined groups whose views are well known. And when it comes down to it, it's hard to have a meaningful and accurate conversation about anyone who is not here to represent their own views.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Mrs.Nisly
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:19 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Mrs.Nisly »

Bootstrap said,
So I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation unless we narrow it down to well-defined groups whose views are well known. And when it comes down to it, it's hard to have a meaningful and accurate conversation about anyone who is not here to represent their own views.
Yes, that is true.
But I would add that historically the biggest differences have come out of the revivalism of the 19th century. It is hard for conservative or progressive Mennonites to relate to anabaptism prior to the influence of revivalism.

I think the thing that create the biggest dissidence for Mennonites now with the influence revivalism, fundimentalism, and modern evangelicalism, is at the point of evangelism its self.
It has borrowed the philosophical and theological premise of this line, and has tried to make it Anabaptist, then it wonders why folks on the fields are confused by and perhaps discouraged with the results.
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

Post by Dan Z »

Bootstrap wrote:Here's a problem I see with this kind of thread....

So I find it difficult to have a meaningful conversation unless we narrow it down to well-defined groups whose views are well known. And when it comes down to it, it's hard to have a meaningful and accurate conversation about anyone who is not here to represent their own views.
I agree boot...discussions like this can tend to meander in a definitional sense, and get "stuck in the weeds" at times. Also...you are right - every sub-group is a hybrid of a myriad of influences, which makes clear definition difficult.

I do, however, think Anabaptism both historically and theologically is definable and distinct...as is American Fundamentalism - and to a lesser degree American Evangelicalism. So...in light of the parameters of the OP, I think the discussion has been helpful.

It is also good for us Anabaptist folks to have a clear idea of why our tradition comes to the conclusions that it does, especially when we are challenged by the differing conclusions of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

I've said this before...but as one who was deliberately drawn to the uniqueness of Anabaptism (coming out of an Evangelical/Calvinist background) I believe that Anabaptist theological conclusions - and most foundationally its Christocentric hermenutic - represent an important correction to some of the ways American Evangelicalism has lost its way.
0 x
Post Reply