Can a Christian be a soldier or police, and kill someone, and still be a Christian?

[Sudsy]

Is there no such thing as being deceived, or being a false prophet? Is it the mouths profession, or is it the fruit, of a man that is more trustworthy?

Can a professing believer be saved if he/she does not follow Peter's sermon instruction to be immersed in water in Jesus name and not repent for their disobedience ?

I think there are various questions that can be made to challenge salvation looking at a text in a certain way.

I'm going with the witness of the Spirit within that gives us assuarance that we have a saving faith. Scripture says we can know we are saved when our spirit bears witness with the Holy Spirit that we are children of God and this I experience so what man believes otherwise is his issue, not mine.

Just catching up on my reading here and see my previous input was challenged.

Yes, we certainly can be deceived and Satan is the great deceiver who disguises himself as a servant of light 2 Cor 11:13-15. And yes it is more than just the mouths profession but scripture says the mouths profession that Jesus is Lord is important (Romans 10:9-10). And scripture says it will be by their fruit that we will know who the false teachers are. However, it doesn't say a true Christ follower will produce perfect fruit and fruit is not produced in an instant.

Myself, I don't think 'simple obedience' is also easily extracted from the scriptures. If what Jesus said to the rich young ruler in how to have eternal life is what everyone must do to get to heaven, then most of us, if not all of us, won't get there. That is why I believe our relationship with the Holy Spirit is of primary importance to guide us in the way that we should go and our understandings of just what the scriptures are saying that God requires of us in the lives we are living today.

For almost 2,000 years most all Christ followers have not had the scriptures as we have our own copies today. What guide did they have for whether or not to be involved in wars ? It would appear that the primary Christian belief was along a 'just war' belief even after the scriptures were available to all. Am I to ignore that and believe all war participants in wars will not be saved / cannot rightly call themselves Christians ? Should I use the 'few there be that find it' be applied to nonresistance as to whether professing Christians are obedient and whether they will be saved ? Should I believe if we are not baptised by immersion we are living in disobedience and won't be saved ? Are women who don't wear a head covering of sorts and therefore living in disobedience not be saved ? Will musical instruments used in worship send those who do to hell ? And we could go on and on about where we are living in perceived disobedience.

Anyway, as I said before, I believe we can know we have eternal life as scripture says despite all our failings. I love that hymn 'Blessed assurance Jesus is mine'. It is not my works of righteousness that saves me but according to His mercy I am saved. Titus 3:5-7

[Bootstrap]

I think I know what Christians should do, according to the Bible as I understand it.

I don't know at what point someone ceases to be a Christian. It's easier for me to be sure that someone's walk is so different from Christianity as I know it that I don't know how to have meaningful fellowship with them at the level needed to be in the same church.

[Josh]

I think John, and, I'm guessing the rest of the church, consider themselves to be Anabaptist.

There is such a wide spectrum as it relates to the term Mennonite, that I tend to use Anabaptist much more than Mennonite. There are probably many Mennonites who don't have a problem with Christians being soldiers or policemen/women. Using the term Anabaptist often opens the door to explaining what the early Anabaptists stood for and why they took the steps they did. It often leads right into the issue of nonresistance.

The term “Anabaptist” is rapidly gaining a meaning among, well, Anabaptists as meaning a “barely-conservative Anabaptist” and is even becoming a pejorative label. I’m seeing this in both my conference and in other groups like conservative Beachys. The fact the liberal Beachy split calls itself Anabaptist D.C. probably isn’t helping.

[Soloist]

Mennonite, Anabaptist, even with the conservative moniker… it’s all meaningless at this point. Does the person walk after the truth Jesus teaches? Then they are brothers.

[GaryK]

I think John, and, I'm guessing the rest of the church, consider themselves to be Anabaptist.

There is such a wide spectrum as it relates to the term Mennonite, that I tend to use Anabaptist much more than Mennonite. There are probably many Mennonites who don't have a problem with Christians being soldiers or policemen/women. Using the term Anabaptist often opens the door to explaining what the early Anabaptists stood for and why they took the steps they did. It often leads right into the issue of nonresistance.

The term “Anabaptist” is rapidly gaining a meaning among, well, Anabaptists as meaning a “barely-conservative Anabaptist” and is even becoming a pejorative label. I’m seeing this in both my conference and in other groups like conservative Beachys. The fact the liberal Beachy split calls itself Anabaptist D.C. probably isn’t helping.

I agree, but the people I interact with know much more about Mennonites than they do Anabaptists.

[GaryK]

Mennonite, Anabaptist, even with the conservative moniker… it’s all meaningless at this point. Does the person walk after the truth Jesus teaches? Then they are brothers.

Your question goes to the heart of why the early Anabaptist movement started.

[Heirbyadoption]

Mennonite, Anabaptist, even with the conservative moniker… it’s all meaningless at this point. Does the person walk after the truth Jesus teaches? Then they are brothers.

Your question goes to the heart of why the early Anabaptist movement started.

Are you saying the heart of why it started was walking after the truth Jesus taught, or that there should be active brotherhood, or both?

[GaryK]

Mennonite, Anabaptist, even with the conservative moniker… it’s all meaningless at this point. Does the person walk after the truth Jesus teaches? Then they are brothers.

Your question goes to the heart of why the early Anabaptist movement started.

Are you saying the heart of why it started was walking after the truth Jesus taught, or that there should be active brotherhood, or both?

From what I understand about the beginning of the Anabaptist movement, desiring to get back to a simple following of Jesus' teachings, was a big focus and active brotherhood was a natural result.

[Ernie]

I think people who obviously look like Mennonites, act like Mennonites, believe like Mennonites, grew up in a Mennonite family, go to church almost exclusively with other people from ethnic Mennonite backgrounds, etc. should not be dishonest and claim not to be Mennonites. And such discourses like above I don't think are helpful or a good witness.

There is a subgenre of this, which is Charity people who upon meeting them, will tell you "we aren't a Charity church". Nobody except people who actually are Charity churches says this. For example, I'd never describe my church as "not being a Charity church".

For me, it's tedious. And as you mentioned, please own your background, and the individuals were all from Cumberland Valley conference.

I'm confused. Who was from Cumberland Valley Conference?

Interesting. I was at the airport a few months ago waiting in the lounge and coincidentally a couple of John's members were there also. A lady approached them and asked if they were Mennonites and they gave her a lengthy discourse on why they were not Mennonites. The man kept saying, "No offence taken, but...we're kingdom Christians, and then blah, blah, blah." I learned a lot!

These folks were members of Shippensburg Fellowship?

I think John, and, I'm guessing the rest of the church, consider themselves to be Anabaptist.

Shippensburg Christian Fellowship lists themselves in the CLP directory as unaffiliated Mennonite. John D. Martin is happy to tell people he is Mennonite. Are there folks at Shippensburg who do not call themselves Mennonite?

Chambersburg Christian Fellowship has referred to themselves as "unaffiliated Anabaptist". CLP does not include "unaffiliated Anabaptists" in their directory, hence Chambersburg is not included.

I can imagine some folks at Chambersburg saying they are Kingdom Christian rather than Mennonite.

[AndersonD]

I think people who obviously look like Mennonites, act like Mennonites, believe like Mennonites, grew up in a Mennonite family, go to church almost exclusively with other people from ethnic Mennonite backgrounds, etc. should not be dishonest and claim not to be Mennonites. And such discourses like above I don't think are helpful or a good witness.

There is a subgenre of this, which is Charity people who upon meeting them, will tell you "we aren't a Charity church". Nobody except people who actually are Charity churches says this. For example, I'd never describe my church as "not being a Charity church".

For me, it's tedious. And as you mentioned, please own your background, and the individuals were all from Cumberland Valley conference.

I'm confused. Who was from Cumberland Valley Conference?

Interesting. I was at the airport a few months ago waiting in the lounge and coincidentally a couple of John's members were there also. A lady approached them and asked if they were Mennonites and they gave her a lengthy discourse on why they were not Mennonites. The man kept saying, "No offence taken, but...we're kingdom Christians, and then blah, blah, blah." I learned a lot!

These folks were members of Shippensburg Fellowship?

They were either Shippensburg or St Thomas. Originally from Cumberland Valley C.