Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

[Valerie]

Valerie, I shouldn't take offense over your treatment of the Anabaptists but I can't seem to help it. You are definitely not very kind. I think some of your treatment is inappropriate for this forum!

Hats Off, I am sorry if you feel I am unkind, - it has been my understanding from the beginning of studying the Anabaptists from their earliest days, that they had no issue with questioning others' faith. Then I read the Heartbeat of the Remnant (Anabaptist publication) which was continually criticizing Evangelicals- so much so, one reader wrote he no longer could subscribe to that publication. So the impression I have gotten through the 10 years now of studying and learning all things Anabaptist, is that they are forthright in their discussing their views on all other denominations- when I came 'here' to Mennodsucss as a seeker, I valued Anabaptists so much that people probably tired of me using them as examples- actually, if you heard my praises about them for the last 10 years it probably would really surprise you.

I am sorry, indiscussing these things I don't mean to be unkind, it is not my intention, I am trying to understand a LOT of things right now- please know I still greatly admire and share good things about Anabaptists to others.

[Wayne in Maine]

The Holy Spirit, was doing the work of creating the NT Church, which would include, but not be limited to- Jesus- nor to Scripture alone-

Certainly the Holy Spirit is essential. And the Holy Spirit speaks to believers gathered together, still leading us today.

But Anabaptists don't think any denomination has a monopoly on the Holy Spirit. We also think that when someone claims to speak for the Holy Spirit, what they say should be tested against Scripture. Christianity today should be mostly about the same kinds of things that it was mostly about in the New Testament.

We think that changed in a big way with Constantine. To us, state churches do not look much like the churches Jesus instituted. Here's Schaff talking about the loss of simple servant Christianity and the loss of the priesthood of all believers:

In the Nicene age the church laid aside her lowly servant-form, and put on a splendid imperial garb. She exchanged the primitive simplicity of her cultus for a richly colored multiplicity. She drew all the fine arts into the service of the sanctuary, and began her sublime creations of Christian architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In place of the pagan temple and altar arose everywhere the stately church and the chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of martyrs and saints. The kindred ideas of priesthood, sacrifice, and altar became more fully developed and more firmly fixed, as the outward hierarchy grew. The mass, or daily repetition of the atoning sacrifice of Christ by the hand of the priest, became the mysterious centre of the whole system of worship. The number of church festivals was increased; processions, and pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and superstitious customs and ceremonies were introduced.

The public worship of God assumed, if we may so speak, a dramatic, theatrical character, which made it attractive and imposing to the mass of the people, who were as yet incapable, for the most part, of worshipping God in spirit and in truth. It was addressed rather to the eye and the ear, to feeling and imagination, than to intelligence and will. In short, we already find in the Nicene age almost all the essential features of the sacerdotal, mysterious, ceremonial, symbolical cultus of the Greek and Roman churches of the present day.

This enrichment and embellishment of the cultus was, on one hand, a real advance, and unquestionably had a disciplinary and educational power, like the hierarchical organization, for the training of the popular masses. But the gain in outward appearance and splendor was balanced by many a loss in simplicity and spirituality.

I find the Orthodox liturgy beautiful and worshipful, but I also find it quite unlike what we see in New Testament worship or in the earliest writings of the church such as the Didache.

A couple of thoughts- because I can agree with you for the most part- except for one thing- I still don't think that every single thing the NT church did & practiced was written down like a manual or text when it comes to worship. And as I read through 1 Corithians 12-14,, if we use that 'picture' of the Church as a representation of the NT Church, I think the Pentecostals are closest to the NT Church- because they are the only ones I have worshipped with that seem to take those chapters seriously-
So where does this leave us? I heard on Christian radio that at the time of the Reformation there was only one Church- Rome- and they of course at that period in history were doing some wrong things- thus the Reformation- however this pastor, when speaking (this last Sunday on radio) was incorrect- Rome was not the 'only' Church at the time, he was completely leaving out the Eastern Church that had been in existence since Jesus- and those Churches still exist today-
Archeological discoveries have taught, along with the earliest writers way more information about the "worship & practice' of the liturgical Church then what is written down in Scripture- don't forget that the NT was not used to start the Churches, Jesus chose Jews who embraced Him as Messiah, to start the Churches- they did not discard all things "Jewish"- this helped me to understand a lot of what we saw in visiting EO Churches of many ethnicities- for wherever His Apostles took the Gospel, they all 'practice' the same form of worship- does not mean they have been ifallible but it helps to read history along with the NT-and see the art, artifacts, etc- which explains a lot-

Perhaps the "worship" practices of the New Testament church were not recorded in the New Testament because the assembly of the called-out ones (the church) was not about ritualistic ceremonies but about a way of life. They worshiped "in spirit and in truth" not in temples. True worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. That is the final word from the New Testament. But the pagan half-converts wanted their priests and incense and demigods and idols and chants and so the elements of Roman pantheism were gradually blended into Christianity and then enforced by the emperor - and this reformed, christened paganism became the official religion calling itself "The Church" of the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

[Valerie]

[
Perhaps the "worship" practices of the New Testament church were not recorded in the New Testament because the assembly of the called-out ones (the church) was not about ritualistic ceremonies but about a way of life. They worshiped "in spirit and in truth" not in temples. True worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. That is the final word from the New Testament. But the pagan half-converts wanted their priests and incense and demigods and idols and chants and so the elements of Roman pantheism were gradually blended into Christianity and then enforced by the emperor - and this reformed, christened paganism became the official religion calling itself "The Church" of the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

We used to assume all that as well Wayne, but we found a lot of your statements to be assumptions that simply were & are-false. A good read of Revelations, speaks into the liturgy & worship of the NT Church, God has always been about ritual, the difference is, when our hearts are unattached to it, then it is dead- but He is the one that instituted worship to include incense, not the pagans (although satan always counterfeits what God does) and then Malachi 1 prophetically teaches that the Gentiles too, will include incense in their worship when they are brought into the Church, and so they did, and so they do, and it had nothing to do with paganism, nor does much of what you convey in your post. It is the other way around.

[Josh]

“God has always been about ritual”

Which god?

[Wayne in Maine]

[
Perhaps the "worship" practices of the New Testament church were not recorded in the New Testament because the assembly of the called-out ones (the church) was not about ritualistic ceremonies but about a way of life. They worshiped "in spirit and in truth" not in temples. True worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. That is the final word from the New Testament. But the pagan half-converts wanted their priests and incense and demigods and idols and chants and so the elements of Roman pantheism were gradually blended into Christianity and then enforced by the emperor - and this reformed, christened paganism became the official religion calling itself "The Church" of the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

We used to assume all that as well Wayne, but we found a lot of your statements to be assumptions that simply were & are-false. A good read of Revelations, speaks into the liturgy & worship of the NT Church,

If Jesus came to bring new rituals and liturgy I suspect He would have done so rather explicitly I expect, unless you believe he secretly passed these rituals on to the apostle who secretly passed them on to the Eastern and Western Roman church leaders. The Good News is about the reign of God, not about new religious rituals.

God has always been about ritual..

Yes, He was quite impressed with the Golden Calf and the rituals they performed to Him when Mosses was on the mountain getting the law from God.

[Valerie]

[
Perhaps the "worship" practices of the New Testament church were not recorded in the New Testament because the assembly of the called-out ones (the church) was not about ritualistic ceremonies but about a way of life. They worshiped "in spirit and in truth" not in temples. True worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. That is the final word from the New Testament. But the pagan half-converts wanted their priests and incense and demigods and idols and chants and so the elements of Roman pantheism were gradually blended into Christianity and then enforced by the emperor - and this reformed, christened paganism became the official religion calling itself "The Church" of the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

We used to assume all that as well Wayne, but we found a lot of your statements to be assumptions that simply were & are-false. A good read of Revelations, speaks into the liturgy & worship of the NT Church,

If Jesus came to bring new rituals and liturgy I suspect He would have done so rather explicitly I expect, unless you believe he secretly passed these rituals on to the apostle who secretly passed them on to the Eastern and Western Roman church leaders. The Good News is about the reign of God, not about new religious rituals.

God has always been about ritual..

Yes, He was quite impressed with the Golden Calf and the rituals they performed to Him when Mosses was on the mountain getting the law from God.

Jesus continued to worship as a "Jew" - you're insulting God by criticizing His forms of worship, and now it is in Spirit and Truth, Jesus is the Truth, and the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, was to indwell all Believers- I have worshipped among Orthodox for several years now, and can assure you, they are anything but 'pagan'- there is no false god they worship- I think they just are not simple minded, and understand much more of the heavenly spiritual worship than believe God is plain.

[Neto]

I view it more as a succession of revelation. God revealed himself a bit at a time. The moral code of Moses' law revealed an important part of God, his view of sin. But the prophets went on and revealed even more about God that took away from the legalistic tone of the Law.

But the NT reveals God even more completely as a God of who loves sinners while hating sin, as well as a god of mercy as well as justice.

This is close, but Paul tells us that New Covenant is a return to the faith covenant with Abraham, and treats the Law as a detour, a guardian added because of sin:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

And in a lot of ways, salvation takes us back to the garden ... so there's movement in more than one direction.

I was also thinking of this passage yesterday (or maybe during the sleepless parts of the night). Please excuse me for referencing the Banawa language again, but it illustrates the type of questions a translator must bring to the text. Banawa has inclusive & exclusive 1st & 2nd plural pronouns & possessives, so that in translating this text, one must decide if when Paul uses the words 'we' and 'our', he was including his hearers, who were non-Jews, or if he was speaking of the Jews only, in the exclusive sense. This question boils down to the theological one of whether this function of the Law applied only to those under the Law - Jews, or to all peoples everywhere, and secondly, by application, whether it is an on-going function or not. (My personal understanding of it is that it applied to everyone everywhere, and that it still functions in this same way - to bring US to Christ. That is why when we began to have 'believers' who believed that Jesus had the power of the evil spirits, but never admitted their own sinfulness, we turned to translation of the OT Scriptures, essentially to give them the Law, that they might be "Crowded to Christ", as L. E. Maxwell puts it.)

But basically I'm posting to question the idea that the Law was "a detour", or a sort of back-tracking. I don't think it replaced the Covenant with Abraham in any way, nor did it replace faith and grace. I'm wondering if it was not more of an overlay, a covenant between God and the nation of Israel as a whole people, while he continued to relate to individuals on the same basis as he had personally dealt with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.

[Wayne in Maine]

Jesus continued to worship as a "Jew" - you're insulting God by criticizing His forms of worship, and now it is in Spirit and Truth, Jesus is the Truth, and the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, was to indwell all Believers- I have worshipped among Orthodox for several years now, and can assure you, they are anything but 'pagan'- there is no false god they worship- I think they just are not simple minded, and understand much more of the heavenly spiritual worship than believe God is plain.

Are you suggesting that we should offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem?

Where in the New Testament are the liturgies practiced by the Eastern and Western Roman religions prescribed?

[Hats Off]

Valerie, I shouldn't take offense over your treatment of the Anabaptists but I can't seem to help it. You are definitely not very kind. I think some of your treatment is inappropriate for this forum!

Hats Off, I am sorry if you feel I am unkind, - it has been my understanding from the beginning of studying the Anabaptists from their earliest days, that they had no issue with questioning others' faith. Then I read the Heartbeat of the Remnant (Anabaptist publication) which was continually criticizing Evangelicals- so much so, one reader wrote he no longer could subscribe to that publication. So the impression I have gotten through the 10 years now of studying and learning all things Anabaptist, is that they are forthright in their discussing their views on all other denominations- when I came 'here' to Mennodsucss as a seeker, I valued Anabaptists so much that people probably tired of me using them as examples- actually, if you heard my praises about them for the last 10 years it probably would really surprise you.

I am sorry, indiscussing these things I don't mean to be unkind, it is not my intention, I am trying to understand a LOT of things right now- please know I still greatly admire and share good things about Anabaptists to others.

I try to be gentle (most of the time) when disagreeing - I think most times others have something good to add to a discussion. But continuously implying that the EO are the only orthodox Church does not sit well with me. When I see pictures of the buildings and all the trappings that go with it, I am sorry but to me that is plain and simple idolatry. I was an Anabaptist before I was familiar with the word and enjoy meeting other people from an Anabaptist faith. Your constant reference to EO is tiring.

[Neto]

Hierarchy may have been the wrong word, though absent the modern fundamentalist idea that the bible is a single book with a single author, the Anabaptists did seem to have a "canon within a canon", much as the Jews held the Law above the prophets.

I will say in answer to Neto that the consensus, or at least the common assumption of most scholars of Anabaptism I have read, is that the Anabaptists emphasized the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount and the sayings of Jesus. One writer, on making this observation, stated "Anabaptist New Testament Biblicism appears to have been shaped solely by an individual and collective desire to follow Christ."

John Oyer stated: "The Anabaptists always preferred the New Testament over the Old Testament..." and notes that in the 16th and 17th century scripture cited in preaching narrowed even further to the Gospels, particularly Matthew's gospel.

William Estep, in "The Anabaptist Story" calls attention to Anabaptist Christocentrism. They understood God's revelation to be progressive such that the New Testament alone was the rule of faith and practice for the Anabaptists. (William Estep, The Anabaptist Story 140-145)

Thank you for your response. I was hoping for some primary sources, and wonder how anyone today could know what Scripture texts were cited in preaching that long ago, unless they are consulting the printed sermons that are still used over & over in some anabaptist groups, often barring the use of original sermons. But not all anabaptist traditions went that direction, so it sounds like a generalization to me, possibly based on a rather small representation.

I fully agree that anabaptism is Christocentric, and almost certainly always was. But the whole of Scripture is also Christocentric. I have certainly noted a reluctance in our own congregation to have any Sunday School study in the OT, and although sermons often cite OT Scriptures, this is predominantly in topical presentations. I didn't do a Scripture citation study when I read through Martyrs' Mirror, but my impression is that they cited a very wide range of Scripture passages. Predominantly in the NT I would say, but not predominantly in the direct quotations of Jesus. Regarding progressive revelation, my understanding is in the context of Jesus himself as the final revelation, not the NT as the final revelation.