Philosophical and Theological differences between Anabaptism and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism

[MaxPC]

Which of the above 5 would you have an issue with?

J.M.

X2 re which of the 5?

Also, is it possible that Menno Simons' Catholic seminary education influenced some of his theology?

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.

[Neto]

X2 re which of the 5?

Also, is it possible that Menno Simons' Catholic seminary education influenced some of his theology?

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.

[MaxPC]

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.

True: Menno may have been speaking humbly.

In that era, there were priests sent on to complex studies who had a gifted intellect. The basic education at seminary has been improved upon since that era with Greek, Latin, theology and philosophy currently required. The intensity of coursework also depends on the seminary too just as with any college. We still send intellectually gifted seminarians on to advanced studies in our era.

An example: Men like Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ are given more degree studies instead of a parish. He's fluent in 13 languages including several ancient languages such as Koine Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Ugaritic, etc. His gifts for languages as well as philosophy and theology has been a blessing to the academic side of Catholic World. Yet to meet him he is completely focused on your concerns and not his own talents.

I'm happy to say I've met many such men from different denominations and faith traditions who've given over their talents and gifts for the Lord's service.

[Bootstrap]

The basic education at seminary has been improved upon since that era with Greek, Latin, theology and philosophy currently required.

Do you have a link or two for that? The first several pages I can find that address this suggest that Latin is required, but Greek and Hebrew are optional in Catholic seminary.

[Bootstrap]

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.

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.

[Neto]

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.

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.

[MaxPC]

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.

It's entirely possible: that was a common practice in that era. Young children of the poor were "apprenticed" to knights, landholders, monasteries, etc to be trained in an occupation. It was the only way a child of impoverished means could receive an education without becoming a ward of a personage.

[Sudsy]

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.

[Neto]

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.

[cmbl]

Good summary, Sudsy.

To add a bit, I think there's a bit of a difference in what is meant by "salvation" - salvation from sin might be added to the CA description to compare/contrast with salvation from the penalty of sin, as you mentioned in the description of the evangelicals. I also think that there's variation on assurance of salvation, ranging from not taught (Old Order) to based on a changed life to based on belief (different forms of CA).

I don't pretend to be the gatekeeper of conservative Anabaptism, but I would venture to say that a theology which includes [unconditional] eternal security ceases to be recognizably conservative Anabaptist.