Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

[Josh]

I have a hard time seeing how focusing on Jesus’ words is a mistake.

[Neto]

There seems to be a popular concept among modern "Plain anabaptists" that anabaptism is founded primarily on the Red Letters of Scripture (Jesus' words) first, and then secondly on the remainder of the NT, and then lastly, only reluctantly, on the Jewish Scripture, the Old Testament. I do not know for certain about the early Swiss Brethren, but this cannot be supported in regards to the Dutch Mennonites, at least judging from the Writings of Menno Simons, and the Martyrs Mirror. I do believe that it is true that they typically interpreted all of Scripture through the lens of Christ, but I don't think that is the same thing as saying the Red Letters deserve more respect than the remainder of Scripture, because the Christ is already the focus of all of Scripture.

This is a separate topic, and one worth discussing in a separate thread. I'll gladly participate, but I'm a little busy lately and would want to devote some good effort to this question, so it might be a slow thread to develop. I would only ask that such a topic focus on the early, historic Anabaptist and that it would exclude Eastern Orthodoxy, "Plain" Roman Catholicism, and MB Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism.

My point, as it relates to this topic, is that this idea was mentioned or implied as a difference between anabaptism & the Orthodox. I respond that whether or not it is true of some anabaptists today, it was not true of early anabaptism, unless it can be shown that the Swiss Brethren took this view. (I am maintaining that it was at least not a viewpoint taken by the early Dutch Mennonites.) In that case, it belongs in the discussion about differences between the Dutch Mennonites & the Swiss Brethren. Maybe I need to go back & check whether the topic here is to do with early anabaptism, or some permutations of it in existence today. (I do not mean the use of this word - "permutations" - as an insult. I recognize that my own background, Mennonite Brethren, is itself a permutation of the older Dutch Mennonitism.)

[This is also not 'sola scriptura' as it is represented in Protestantism. I attempted to clarify the difference in the post quoted here, but Boot described the difference very well in his post above.]

[ken_sylvania]

There seems to be a popular concept among modern "Plain anabaptists" that anabaptism is founded primarily on the Red Letters of Scripture (Jesus' words) first, and then secondly on the remainder of the NT, and then lastly, only reluctantly, on the Jewish Scripture, the Old Testament. I do not know for certain about the early Swiss Brethren, but this cannot be supported in regards to the Dutch Mennonites, at least judging from the Writings of Menno Simons, and the Martyrs Mirror. I do believe that it is true that they typically interpreted all of Scripture through the lens of Christ, but I don't think that is the same thing as saying the Red Letters deserve more respect than the remainder of Scripture, because the Christ is already the focus of all of Scripture.

This is a separate topic, and one worth discussing in a separate thread. I'll gladly participate, but I'm a little busy lately and would want to devote some good effort to this question, so it might be a slow thread to develop. I would only ask that such a topic focus on the early, historic Anabaptist and that it would exclude Eastern Orthodoxy, "Plain" Roman Catholicism, and MB Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism.

My point, as it relates to this topic, is that this idea was mentioned or implied as a difference between anabaptism & the Orthodox. I respond that whether or not it is true of some anabaptists today, it was not true of early anabaptism, unless it can be shown that the Swiss Brethren took this view. (I am maintaining that it was at least not a viewpoint taken by the early Dutch Mennonites.) In that case, it belongs in the discussion about differences between the Dutch Mennonites & the Swiss Brethren. Maybe I need to go back & check whether the topic here is to do with early anabaptism, or some permutations of it in existence today. (I do not mean the use of this word - "permutations" - as an insult. I recognize that my own background, Mennonite Brethren, is itself a permutation of the older Dutch Mennonitism.)

[This is also not 'sola scriptura' as it is represented in Protestantism. I attempted to clarify the difference in the post quoted here, but Boot described the difference very well in his post above.]

Would you say that Jesus' teachings about loving our enemies, nonresistance, and non-swearing of oaths were new teachings superseding the related OT teachings, or would you say these teachings were included in the Mosaic law?

I would have thought that the early Anabaptist teachings on these things were, at least some degree, a result of a belief that Jesus teachings required a higher standard in some of these areas. I admit I have not studied their writings with an eye to this specific question.

[Wayne in Maine]

As Sudsy pointed out (again) I think that the mistake the Anabaptist made is stopping with Jesus Words- rememember that He came to the lost Sheep of Israel- and to save the world from their sins and reconcile us to the Father-

The Anabaptists never stopped with Jesus' words. They did indeed apply the whole copy of scripture to their lives - but all viewed through the lens of the Good News of Jesus, not through the lens of the Old Testament law. The reformers advocated infant baptism because they believed that infant circumcision foreshadowed it. But because neither Jesus nor His apostles called for infant baptism, they rejected it.

But if anyone can show where Jesus said 'by Scripture' alone He would build the New Church, the Israel of God, I would appreciate sharing that passage.

Jesus never said "By scripture alone", but where else are you going to find the words of Jesus and the prophets and of God?

I think this is where I have an appreciation for Anabaptist for obedience to what Jesus said, but a recognition they are limited in understanding & interpretation- well that is evidenced by their very beginning when they were separated into different understandings- the Hutterites, the Mennonites, the Amish all see things "Scripture" differently- it isn't as if they were guided by the Holy Spirit in trying to start the Church over.

First off there were many different groups called "Anabaptist's", so one cannot really say "they", secondly, factions arose within a few years, certainly, but it is interesting to look at what they believed and practiced in the earliest years when they were unified (before the state murdered their most skillful leaders like Michael Sattler).

So it seems that they were not given the gift of interpretation-

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-

Valerie, I think you only believe that they were not given the "gift of interpretation" simply because they did not join one of the Eastern divisions of the "universal" religion established in the Roman empire in the 3rd and 4th century.

[Josh]

One question with special revelation is when does it end: for example, Holdemans used to trace an unbroken apostolic lineage right down to John Holdeman, and used to be quite open to special revelation like dreams and visions. (Early Anabaptists did this too.)

Other groups also do this, like Winebrennerists, modern day charismatics, or Landmarkist Baptists. Ultimately it decays into a very foolish contest over who has the “best” lineage.

(I’m glad modern day Holdemanism has veered away from this, and instead tries to base things on the New Testament, but with a special esteem given to writers like Michael Sattler, Menno Simons, and John Holdeman based on the fruits we see of their life. But the NT will always trump any of those.)

[Hats Off]

As Sudsy pointed out (again) I think that the mistake the Anabaptist made is stopping with Jesus Words- rememember that He came to the lost Sheep of Israel- and to save the world from their sins and reconcile us to the Father-

Valerie, if you think the Anabaptists stopped with the red letters, you still know very little about the Anabaptists!

[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!

[Neto]

This is a separate topic, and one worth discussing in a separate thread. I'll gladly participate, but I'm a little busy lately and would want to devote some good effort to this question, so it might be a slow thread to develop. I would only ask that such a topic focus on the early, historic Anabaptist and that it would exclude Eastern Orthodoxy, "Plain" Roman Catholicism, and MB Evangelicalism/Pentecostalism.

My point, as it relates to this topic, is that this idea was mentioned or implied as a difference between anabaptism & the Orthodox. I respond that whether or not it is true of some anabaptists today, it was not true of early anabaptism, unless it can be shown that the Swiss Brethren took this view. (I am maintaining that it was at least not a viewpoint taken by the early Dutch Mennonites.) In that case, it belongs in the discussion about differences between the Dutch Mennonites & the Swiss Brethren. Maybe I need to go back & check whether the topic here is to do with early anabaptism, or some permutations of it in existence today. (I do not mean the use of this word - "permutations" - as an insult. I recognize that my own background, Mennonite Brethren, is itself a permutation of the older Dutch Mennonitism.)

[This is also not 'sola scriptura' as it is represented in Protestantism. I attempted to clarify the difference in the post quoted here, but Boot described the difference very well in his post above.]

Would you say that Jesus' teachings about loving our enemies, nonresistance, and non-swearing of oaths were new teachings superseding the related OT teachings, or would you say these teachings were included in the Mosaic law?

I would have thought that the early Anabaptist teachings on these things were, at least some degree, a result of a belief that Jesus teachings required a higher standard in some of these areas. I admit I have not studied their writings with an eye to this specific question.

Without doing additional study on this now, I would say that these concepts were contained in the Law (and in previous revelations of God) in a sort of basic form, and that Jesus refined and focused these truths. But there are also parts of the Law that were superseded by the revelation of the Christ, and his teaching, not only that revealed in direct quotations, but also that revealed by the Holy Spirit later, or that reported in other than direct quotations. I think that we often take the teachings of the Pharisees as having been accurate application of the Law w/o really listening to what Jesus said about them and their teaching. That is, they had distorted both the Law and its intent. (For instance, at least in general, where Jesus says "You have heard that it is said..." he is not responding to something that is a real part of the Law, but something that was a part of the Jewish oral traditions - stuff they had added. If he is quoting the Law, he says, "It is written...".)

Nonresistance. I think that the problem here is that many modern anabaptists regard nonresistance as a primary doctrine, and then base their understanding of citizenship in the single Kingdom on it, rather than the opposite. That is, I believe that nonresistance flows out of single kingdom citizenship. Here's the difference (sorry, getting off topic here): If nonresistance is a primary doctrine, then we have a serious problem understanding the things God told the Israelites to do in the OT period, and are likely going to be ill at ease with the final judgement as well. One of the responses to this 'problem' is this disassociation from the OT Scriptures. Before the coming of Messiah, the nation of Israel was the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus clearly told Pilate that his kingdom was no longer of this world (Jn 18:36). Where the King is, there is the Kingdom. When he comes again, the kingdom will come with him, and judgement & destruction will follow for those who reject him. (It is, however, in my understanding, certainly true that the large majority of early anabaptists regarded their era to be the last days, the great tribulation, and saw themselves as completing that "number of souls under the altar".)

[Bootstrap]

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.

[Bootstrap]

The other huge difference we have with state churches is the nature of the state church itself. Again, I think Schaff is eloquent on what this change meant.

The reign of Constantine the Great marks the transition of the Christian religion from under persecution by the secular government to union with the same; the beginning of the state-church system. The Graeco-Roman heathenism, the most cultivated and powerful form of idolatry, which history knows, surrenders, after three hundred years' struggle, to Christianity, and dies of incurable consumption, with the confession: Galilean, thou hast conquered! The ruler of the civilized world lays his crown at the feet of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth.

The successor of Nero, Domitian, and Diocletian appears in the imperial purple at the council of Nice as protector of the church, and takes his golden throne at the nod of bishops, who still bear the scars of persecution. The despised sect, which, like its Founder in the days of His humiliation, had not where to lay its head, is raised to sovereign authority in the state, enters into the prerogatives of the pagan priesthood, grows rich and powerful, builds countless churches out of the stones of idol temples to the honor of Christ and his martyrs, employs the wisdom of Greece and Rome to vindicate the foolishness of the cross, exerts a molding power upon civil legislation, rules the national life, and leads off the history of the world.

But at the same time the church, embracing the mass of the population of the empire, from the Caesar to the meanest slave, and living amidst all its institutions, received into her bosom vast deposits of foreign material from the world and from heathenism, exposing herself to new dangers and imposing upon herself new and heavy labors.

The union of church and state extends its influence, now healthful, now baneful, into every department of our history.