Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Neto wrote: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.
The men who split with Zwingli over Baptism of infants were martyred long before Menno Simons. We discussed this on MD, and I believe that the Christocentric hierarchy that put the words of Jesus in the Gospels at the top of God’s Revelation (with the rest of the New Testament following but given precedence over the prophets and the law) was the genesis and unique characteristic ofbAnabaptism.
0 x
haithabu
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Location: Calgary
Affiliation: Missionary Church

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by haithabu »

That teaching of the hierarchy of scriptural authority is not to be found in Scripture.
0 x
User avatar
mike
Posts: 5364
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 10:32 pm
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by mike »

haithabu wrote:That teaching of the hierarchy of scriptural authority is not to be found in Scripture.
Different topic, but...
The Word became flesh
and took up residence among us.
We observed His glory,
the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed,
“This was the One of whom I said,
‘The One coming after me has surpassed me,
because He existed before me.’”)
16 Indeed, we have all received grace after grace
from His fullness,
17 for the law was given through Moses,
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has ever seen God.
The One and Only Son—
the One who is at the Father’s side—
He has revealed Him.
0 x
Remember the prisoners, as though you were in prison with them, and the mistreated, as though you yourselves were suffering bodily. -Heb. 13:3
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Sudsy »

silentreader wrote:
I think it was Leonard Ravenhill that said that probably less than 15% of professing Christians are actually born again. This, of course, is one of the prime reasons for discord and church splits and an inablity to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, you probably hit the nail on the head and Leonard Ravenhill was good at that. Here is a little 11 minute clip of Leonard talking about really being born again. Not very many Leonard Ravenhills anymore. :cry:



Whether one is Anabaptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal, RC, EO, or whatever if being born again is nothing more than taking on a new religion or new form of religion, then according to the scriptures, we have not been born of the Spirit. We are still spiritually dead in our sins regardless of any efforts to be sin free through religious practises.

[bible]2 cor 5,17[/bible]
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Neto
Posts: 4574
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Neto »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Neto wrote: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.
The men who split with Zwingli over Baptism of infants were martyred long before Menno Simons. We discussed this on MD, and I believe that the Christocentric hierarchy that put the words of Jesus in the Gospels at the top of God’s Revelation (with the rest of the New Testament following but given precedence over the prophets and the law) was the genesis and unique characteristic ofbAnabaptism.
I assume that by "before Menno Simons" you mean "before the conversion of Menno Simons", because of course Menno was not martyred like the first leaders among anabaptism in the Swiss setting. But the last of them was martyred about 7 or 8 years before Menno's conversion, and he had already been preaching against infant baptism before his 'conversion', or his break with Catholicism.

But my primary question is on what do you base this statement that Jesus' words were considered as of greater significance than the rest of Scripture. I have not noted anything like this in Martyr's Mirror, for instance. It seems to me that such a view flies in the face of Jesus' own teaching, because he used Scripture so heavily himself, and also showed his attitude toward the Law & the Prophets, such as in his telling of the story of Lazarus and the rich man. (Especially as in Luke 16:29-31, where he quotes Abraham's response to the (dead) rich man: "Your brothers have Moses & the Prophets, let them listen to them. If they refuse to listen to them, having a person come back from the dead to speak to them won't help, either.") On the road to Emmaus, he taught the two disciples about himself from the Scriptures (at least as his starting point; Luke 24:27). If he regarded his own words as of greater importance, why didn't he quote himself?
[If I can be shown to be differing with the early anabaptists - fine. I am more concerned with being true to the Scriptures. They repeatedly stressed (to their captors) that if they could be showed to be in error from the Scriptures, they would recant. It is in that sense that I am anabaptist. So while this would be off topic here, in the spirit of the early anabaptists, the more important question would be if someone can show me from Scripture that the quoted words of Jesus should be taken as of greater value than the rest of Scripture.]
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Sudsy »

Neto wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Neto wrote: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.
The men who split with Zwingli over Baptism of infants were martyred long before Menno Simons. We discussed this on MD, and I believe that the Christocentric hierarchy that put the words of Jesus in the Gospels at the top of God’s Revelation (with the rest of the New Testament following but given precedence over the prophets and the law) was the genesis and unique characteristic ofbAnabaptism.
I assume that by "before Menno Simons" you mean "before the conversion of Menno Simons", because of course Menno was not martyred like the first leaders among anabaptism in the Swiss setting. But the last of them was martyred about 7 or 8 years before Menno's conversion, and he had already been preaching against infant baptism before his 'conversion', or his break with Catholicism.

But my primary question is on what do you base this statement that Jesus' words were considered as of greater significance than the rest of Scripture. I have not noted anything like this in Martyr's Mirror, for instance. It seems to me that such a view flies in the face of Jesus' own teaching, because he used Scripture so heavily himself, and also showed his attitude toward the Law & the Prophets, such as in his telling of the story of Lazarus and the rich man. (Especially as in Luke 16:29-31, where he quotes Abraham's response to the (dead) rich man: "Your brothers have Moses & the Prophets, let them listen to them. If they refuse to listen to them, having a person come back from the dead to speak to them won't help, either.") On the road to Emmaus, he taught the two disciples about himself from the Scriptures (at least as his starting point; Luke 24:27). If he regarded his own words as of greater importance, why didn't he quote himself?
[If I can be shown to be differing with the early anabaptists - fine. I am more concerned with being true to the Scriptures. They repeatedly stressed (to their captors) that if they could be showed to be in error from the Scriptures, they would recant. It is in that sense that I am anabaptist. So while this would be off topic here, in the spirit of the early anabaptists, the more important question would be if someone can show me from Scripture that the quoted words of Jesus should be taken as of greater value than the rest of Scripture.]
I totally agree as Jesus said what He didn't get a chance to say and reflect in Himself, the Spirit would continue to pass on as the truth. So, I believe 'red letters' are no more 'significant' in following Jesus.

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." John 16:13
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Bootstrap »

haithabu wrote:That teaching of the hierarchy of scriptural authority is not to be found in Scripture.
I think Scripture does teach that the Old Testament is veiled to those who do not know Jesus, and only through Jesus is the veil removed:
2 Corinthians 3 wrote:Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
And this rhymes with what Galatians 3 tells us about the relationship between the two covenants:
Galatians 3 wrote:Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

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.
I think this does imply a hierarchy of Scripture in which Jesus is the key to the entire Bible, and the Old Covenant is unveiled in Christ, who is the lens through which we regard all Scripture.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Neto wrote: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.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Neto wrote: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.
I think there's a simple way of saying this that might obviate the need for a new thread.

The Christ of Scripture is not just what he said, but also what he did - healing, reaching out to outcasts, living a perfect life, sacrificing himself for us, rising again. Some of this was not clearly spelled out before the letters of Paul and others. Some of this happened at the beginning of time, when the Logos was with God, but was not revealed to us before the New Covenant. Some of this comes at the end, when he returns and makes all things new.

So the Christ that clarifies Scripture includes everything Scripture tells us about Jesus, not just the red letters.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Why Anabaptists and Mennonites are not Orthodox

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Neto wrote: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.
I think there's a simple way of saying this that might obviate the need for a new thread.

The Christ of Scripture is not just what he said, but also what he did - healing, reaching out to outcasts, living a perfect life, sacrificing himself for us, rising again. Some of this was not clearly spelled out before the letters of Paul and others. Some of this happened at the beginning of time, when the Logos was with God, but was not revealed to us before the New Covenant. Some of this comes at the end, when he returns and makes all things new.

So the Christ that clarifies Scripture includes everything Scripture tells us about Jesus, not just the red letters.
Jesus said:

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

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-
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. 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. 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-
0 x
Post Reply