AP Video: How to Read Revelation & Avoid the Mark of the Beast

[ohio jones]

Wife: ChatGPT hasn’t sat through any sermons from Pilgrim or eastern, apparently.

And neither have I ;->

It really does illustrate the limitations of AI.

[Bootstrap]

Wife: ChatGPT hasn’t sat through any sermons from Pilgrim or eastern, apparently.

And neither have I ;->

It really does illustrate the limitations of AI.

And my own limitations. The outline it generated match well with the Mennonites and Anabaptists I know best.

So ... what should I know about Pilgrim or Eastern?

[RZehr]

My opinion and theory is that when it started, Eastern was so sick of relativism and growing worldliness in the Mennonite church, that they over corrected into fundamentalism or literalism.
And they found themselves with a mindset that left little room for not taking the Bible (N.T. teachings) literally. And they were and are terribly uncomfortable with making any exceptions to that approach for Revelation.

I could be wrong here. It’s just something I suspect.

I do think that with dispensationalism teaching that Jesus teachings are in a different dispensation than church age dispensation, (my understanding of this subject is that the change point in time between these two dispensations was marked by the resurrection.) it has stopped Mennonites from become super bought in. Because we have never, and refuse to, say that Jesus teachings belong to a prior dispensation. We believe them to be core.

[cmbl]

My opinion and theory is that when it started, Eastern was so sick of relativism and growing worldliness in the Mennonite church, that they over corrected into fundamentalism or literalism.
And they found themselves with a mindset that left little room for not taking the Bible (N.T. teachings) literally. And they were and are terribly uncomfortable with making any exceptions to that approach for Revelation.

I could be wrong here. It’s just something I suspect.

I do think that with dispensationalism teaching that Jesus teachings are in a different dispensation than church age dispensation, (my understanding of this subject is that the change point in time between these two dispensations was marked by the resurrection.) it has stopped Mennonites from become super bought in. Because we have never, and refuse to, say that Jesus teachings belong to a prior dispensation. We believe them to be core.

The dynamics are basically as you described but I would add that dispensationalism entered Lancaster Conference in the early 1900s, prior to the formation of Eastern. So there was a reaching for Fundamentalism/dispensationalism in the early 20th century after losing the Old Orders in the 1890s. (Dispensationalism was controversial then, and there were always some amillenials in Lancaster Conference and then in Eastern, of course).

[Soloist]

And neither have I ;->

It really does illustrate the limitations of AI.

And my own limitations. The outline it generated match well with the Mennonites and Anabaptists I know best.

So ... what should I know about Pilgrim or Eastern?

Wife: many of them (not all) would be pre trib premillinials. At least the ones I know allow the possibility of being wrong, and are not as political as the Protestant version. I’m thankful to say that the minister here doesn’t seem to like the left behind books, and none of the people I know think the current state of Israel is following God or there are two paths to salvation.
You hear a lot about the feast of tabernacles (I forget why). Really, only one person here even preaches on it and one or two visiting preachers, and they seem to allow a variety of beliefs, although I doubt there are any preterist/amillinial sermons preached. I’m new here though so I might be wrong.

[Bootstrap]

I do think that with dispensationalism teaching that Jesus teachings are in a different dispensation than church age dispensation, (my understanding of this subject is that the change point in time between these two dispensations was marked by the resurrection.) it has stopped Mennonites from become super bought in. Because we have never, and refuse to, say that Jesus teachings belong to a prior dispensation. We believe them to be core.

I agree - and Mennonites have generally believed that suffering and martyrdom can be part of God's plan, so the escape hatch aspect of pre-trib seems like an odd fit.

I do think that most Mennonites see the Old Testament as "a different dispensation". I think Galatians and Romans give strong support to that view.

[Bootstrap]

My opinion and theory is that when it started, Eastern was so sick of relativism and growing worldliness in the Mennonite church, that they over corrected into fundamentalism or literalism.
And they found themselves with a mindset that left little room for not taking the Bible (N.T. teachings) literally. And they were and are terribly uncomfortable with making any exceptions to that approach for Revelation.

I could be wrong here. It’s just something I suspect.

Basically, the loudest Bible thumpers seem to be pre-trib rapture in modern America? I get that. Biblical authority is important. Better stick with people who are saying that.

But I'm not convinced some of the pre-trib rapture people are taking Revelation "more literally", especially when they read just about anything they want to into the text. Beasts everywhere sometimes. Perhaps the Eastern and Pilgrim people aren't like that? And there are some "Evangelicals" in America who seem to believe in some apocalyptic vision but not in following much of anything else in the Bible ...

[barnhart]

And there are some "Evangelicals" in America who seem to believe in some apocalyptic vision but not in following much of anything else in the Bible ...

The vision of a coming apocalypse is quite sturdy, it survives after all other biblical beliefs are cast off. Even secularists and atheists still see an apocalypse in the future.

[Valerie]

Anyone ever hear of Jonas Stutzman? He seemed to be of some persuasion regarding the Lord's return-

https://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/j ... her-118162

[ohio jones]

My opinion and theory is that when it started, Eastern was so sick of relativism and growing worldliness in the Mennonite church, that they over corrected into fundamentalism or literalism.
And they found themselves with a mindset that left little room for not taking the Bible (N.T. teachings) literally. And they were and are terribly uncomfortable with making any exceptions to that approach for Revelation.

I could be wrong here. It’s just something I suspect.

I do think that with dispensationalism teaching that Jesus teachings are in a different dispensation than church age dispensation, (my understanding of this subject is that the change point in time between these two dispensations was marked by the resurrection.) it has stopped Mennonites from become super bought in. Because we have never, and refuse to, say that Jesus teachings belong to a prior dispensation. We believe them to be core.

The dynamics are basically as you described but I would add that dispensationalism entered Lancaster Conference in the early 1900s, prior to the formation of Eastern. So there was a reaching for Fundamentalism/dispensationalism in the early 20th century after losing the Old Orders in the 1890s. (Dispensationalism was controversial then, and there were always some amillenials in Lancaster Conference and then in Eastern, of course).

Among the groups I'm most familiar with (moderate, fundamental/progressive, and theological conservatives), amillenials are a small minority, as are extreme dispensationalists. Most would be premillenial, either of the historic variety or a modified dispensationalism that does not reject the teachings of Jesus.