Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Josh]

Radicals and revolutionaries aren’t really the same thing. The Communist revolutionaries sought to institute an entirely new total way of living. The French revolutionaries sought an entire new type of government - a French republic - to replace the old monarchy. Both these revolutionary movements sought to replace things like clocks and calendars with things based on 10 instead of the old ways of hours, minutes, weeks.

The radicals want to return to the roots of Christianity. They did not seek to institute a new system. So we don’t see the radicals trying to completely upend every way of living. Rather, they felt every way of living should be subject to Jesus’ teachings.

[Valerie]

Is it from God? Gamaliel's observation in Acts 5 is wisdom itself: time tells the tale.

Acts 5:38–39
38 And now, I tell you, stay away from these men and leave them alone. For if this plan or this work is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even be found fighting against God.” So they were persuaded by him.

We all have Free Will and God respects that. He also respects sincere intentions to follow Him. In my long years I have observed that no matter what kind of dog's breakfast man may make of church, God perfects it all if that effort is based upon a sincere love of God and a sincere desire to live according to His teachings. Romans 8:28 bears this out:

We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

I've often thought pf Gamaliels statement in Acts 5 pertaining to the many sects/denominations.creayed since the Reformation & groups since which are thousands. It is hard on viewing all this to believe it was God's will, but He allowed it. Perfect will vs allowable is all i can personally accept.

[Valerie]

Anabaptism was radical, as in returning to roots; it was neither liberal, nor conservative. A few other movements were similar such as Quakers and Moravians.

Anabaptism was quite different than rational enlightenment which tended to inform the rest of the Reformation, particularly the English Reformation.

When Anabaptists become liberal, they start to look like the other magisterial reformers, eg Anglicans and their descendants (Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Reformed, Baptists, and so on). Liberal Quakers and Moravians would be the same way.

When formerly-liberal Anabaptists become conservative, they tend to try to keep doing things their liberal ancestors did, but refuse to accept any more liberal changes. They end up looking like conservative Methodists or conservative Baptists and so on. The theological conservative Quakers are the same way. Conservatives are in effect defined by reaction. They “aren’t liberal”. No Eastern Mennonite[*] thinks he is following liberal traditions by going to Sunday school, even though his United Methodist neighbour also conducts Sunday school.

The “Old Order” tried to remain radical by avoiding any changes, whether liberal, modernist, or marketed to them by conservatives in other denominations. (Conservative Quakers function very much the same way.) They prefer to continue to practice their spiritual traditions and trust in them.

They also have a different motivation. Both liberals and conservatives have a desire to “rescue the world”, trying to do good whether via social justice programs, mission boards, community outreaches, soup kitchens, involvement in noble political causes, denominations making statements denouncing various evils, and a concern for trying to convert individuals to their way of thinking.

The Old Order felt they should not try to reform society but instead should try to simply remain faithful to their roots. The Pure Church Movement would be an excellent example of this. To them, the most important thing in the world is to make sure that the group they identify was will remain non resistant. So they adapt their lifestyle to meet that need.

Hutterites, for example, now believe that living communally means their assets will continue to be used to maintain nonresistance after they die. So they live that way (and indeed during lawsuits with former members the courts adjudicated that is the basis for their communal ownership of property). Amish believe that by using horses and buggies, they can transmit a way of living that eschews getting involved with worldly things where eventually one is ready to enlist in the military.

Conservatives and liberals simply don’t focus on that. They have other values. The conservative wants to “preserve” his lifestyle in areas he likes, but welcomes change in areas he doesn’t like. The liberal is eager to change any area. The Old Order believes he should accept keeping his lifestyle the same in many areas he doesn’t like.

[*] I believe that some of the Eastern splinter groups are essentially becoming Old Order in thinking, specifically, groups that take a strong stance against using no Internet or smartphones whatsoever.

Pentecostal Churches didn't form till early last century- i think they had the same thinking as Anabaptists- that God seeing the present situation of Church at large, was starting it over via an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
I think they still believe this to be true

[Josh]

Pentecostal Churches didn't form till early last century- i think they had the same thinking as Anabaptists- that God seeing the present situation of Church at large, was starting it over via an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
I think they still believe this to be true

Anabaptists didn’t think they had some special new “outpouring”.

Rather, they simply read the New Testament and felt they should try to obey it in full.

[Valerie]

I understand how it did, but o wonder if ot [it] should jave [have] ever happened-
Honestly- we KNOW that everything was not written down in detail in the Gospels & Epistles-
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 "therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which were taught, whether by word or our epistle.)-"word" here indicating Paul and Apostles taught some specifics "orally" that they did not wrote down.
When i read these statements, including Origen staying [saying that] the Apostles taught it, and we know some Reformers did not "discard" infant baptism to this day, I'm greatly concerned there was a HUGE assumption made that may have, even with the best intention, was actually an heir [error] that divided the church at large so badly that it is unrecognizable today.
....

Note: I realize that you "typed" this on a cellular telephone, so I didn't make the "corrections" in order to criticize (I send some pretty crazy text messages myself, not realizing how the "auto-mess-up" app is changing what I have entered. But I also did this in order to show how I am understanding what you posted, just in case I misinterpreted some part of it.

First, I think that the issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism is only one part of the reasons for the separation at the time of the Reformation. As you mentioned, the larger part of the Reformers did not change anything in respect to this question, so it basically focuses your question ("Was it worth dividing the church?") on the "anabaptists".
I see two main issues that brought about this separation. (In the case of the 'anabaptists" leaving the Catholic church I don't think it should be called it "dividing the Church", because the true Church was severely obscured by the spiritual condition of the organized church at that time. And I am not just pointing fingers at the Catholic church, because the same thing has happened in my own heritage. Maybe that gives me the "right" to point a few fingers?)
So the first element I wanted to point out is the issue of a Pure Church as opposed to a remnant within the whole 'church', which was recognized as being mostly corrupt. (Not that any were completely pure, but rather that they valued purity, and worked toward it, struggling with the forces of evil that rise up within each of us.)
Then the second main element I see is the focus on the authority of the Scripture vs the authority of members of the clergy.

So, as to the question - Was it worth it? It's a mixed bag, because the tendency of humanity is to corrupt anything and everything they lay their hands on. It just doesn't seem to last. But, as I have said before, "God has no grandchildren." In a sense, the true Church must start over again with each person. When that doesn't happen as God wills it, this "dividing the church" needs to happen again and again, anytime the sinfulness of human kind creeps into it.

Another question often comes up later, out of a hind-sight self evaluation. "Should 'we' have stayed, and attempted to be the messengers of the Kingdom, to bring change from within?" We cannot ever take both forks in the road, and see how each one develops, or "where it takes us", then go back & choose the one that appears to give the best result. This was the feeling of misgiving that eventually came to the founders of the Mennonite Brethren group, after having left the "Big Church" in the colonies. In this case, as in the case of the reformation period, the act of some leaving the group they saw as helplessly corrupt DID bring about reform of the former group. Was it "enough"? In the case of my own people, I would say no. The main group that remained of the Big Church after immigration to North & South America is still mostly corrupt. Does the MB group need to return to some prior convictions? Yes.

I appreciate what you shared. I also appreciate the attempt for a pure Church but I wonder for example in Reading first and second Corinthians if Paul would have agreed with that, I mean they were part of the church, but by what we read, they were not pure. I think for example Eastern Orthodox refer to the church as a hospital for the sick. Perhaps Catholics say the same. It seems Jesus prayer in John 17 was for the Church to be One- seems like a good read to the Epistles there was the understanding that none of the churches were perfect but they were part of"The Church".
You bring up what I wonder. But will never know. What if they would have just waited things out a while and allowed God to bring the corrections like he did with Israel

[Valerie]

Pentecostal Churches didn't form till early last century- i think they had the same thinking as Anabaptists- that God seeing the present situation of Church at large, was starting it over via an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
I think they still believe this to be true

Anabaptists didn’t think they had some special new “outpouring”.

Rather, they simply read the New Testament and felt they should try to obey it in full.

Right I understand. I'm just pointing out in both cases both groups seem to believe they were the new church that God would want to represent Him. Pentecostals had the supernatural outpouring and gifts flowing so they too thought they were closer to the New testament Church

[Wade]

The call of Christ was to repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. His call was to follow Him. His call was to forsake all or you are not worthy to be His disciple.
None of which a child much less an infant can do!

His focus was the kingdom of God and it was not primarily about salvation.

The division is simply a focus on the reality of His kingdom now or a focus on salvation. Anyone who thinks you can be born into the church by infant baptism has to throw out the call of Christ to commit to Him - being born again and be alive in Him, experiencing the blessing of His Will on earth.

This didn’t happen in the 1500’s where some wrongly focused on salvation and missed the kingdom, it started early on.

For those who believe in infant baptism how do you reconcile infant baptism with the calls of Christ (that only people who aren’t children can do) and him only calling the Gospel the kingdom of heaven/God?



I will add I’m sceptical that the Protestant churches that came out of the reformation were worth it.

[Neto]

I understand how it did, but o wonder if ot [it] should jave [have] ever happened-
Honestly- we KNOW that everything was not written down in detail in the Gospels & Epistles-
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 "therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which were taught, whether by word or our epistle.)-"word" here indicating Paul and Apostles taught some specifics "orally" that they did not wrote down.
When i read these statements, including Origen staying [saying that] the Apostles taught it, and we know some Reformers did not "discard" infant baptism to this day, I'm greatly concerned there was a HUGE assumption made that may have, even with the best intention, was actually an heir [error] that divided the church at large so badly that it is unrecognizable today.
....

Note: I realize that you "typed" this on a cellular telephone, so I didn't make the "corrections" in order to criticize (I send some pretty crazy text messages myself, not realizing how the "auto-mess-up" app is changing what I have entered. But I also did this in order to show how I am understanding what you posted, just in case I misinterpreted some part of it.

First, I think that the issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism is only one part of the reasons for the separation at the time of the Reformation. As you mentioned, the larger part of the Reformers did not change anything in respect to this question, so it basically focuses your question ("Was it worth dividing the church?") on the "anabaptists".
I see two main issues that brought about this separation. (In the case of the 'anabaptists" leaving the Catholic church I don't think it should be called it "dividing the Church", because the true Church was severely obscured by the spiritual condition of the organized church at that time. And I am not just pointing fingers at the Catholic church, because the same thing has happened in my own heritage. Maybe that gives me the "right" to point a few fingers?)
So the first element I wanted to point out is the issue of a Pure Church as opposed to a remnant within the whole 'church', which was recognized as being mostly corrupt. (Not that any were completely pure, but rather that they valued purity, and worked toward it, struggling with the forces of evil that rise up within each of us.)
Then the second main element I see is the focus on the authority of the Scripture vs the authority of members of the clergy.

So, as to the question - Was it worth it? It's a mixed bag, because the tendency of humanity is to corrupt anything and everything they lay their hands on. It just doesn't seem to last. But, as I have said before, "God has no grandchildren." In a sense, the true Church must start over again with each person. When that doesn't happen as God wills it, this "dividing the church" needs to happen again and again, anytime the sinfulness of human kind creeps into it.

Another question often comes up later, out of a hind-sight self evaluation. "Should 'we' have stayed, and attempted to be the messengers of the Kingdom, to bring change from within?" We cannot ever take both forks in the road, and see how each one develops, or "where it takes us", then go back & choose the one that appears to give the best result. This was the feeling of misgiving that eventually came to the founders of the Mennonite Brethren group, after having left the "Big Church" in the colonies. In this case, as in the case of the reformation period, the act of some leaving the group they saw as helplessly corrupt DID bring about reform of the former group. Was it "enough"? In the case of my own people, I would say no. The main group that remained of the Big Church after immigration to North & South America is still mostly corrupt. Does the MB group need to return to some prior convictions? Yes.

I appreciate what you shared. I also appreciate the attempt for a pure Church but I wonder for example in Reading first and second Corinthians if Paul would have agreed with that, I mean they were part of the church, but by what we read, they were not pure. I think for example Eastern Orthodox refer to the church as a hospital for the sick. Perhaps Catholics say the same. It seems Jesus prayer in John 17 was for the Church to be One- seems like a good read to the Epistles there was the understanding that none of the churches were perfect but they were part of"The Church".
You bring up what I wonder. But will never know. What if they would have just waited things out a while and allowed God to bring the corrections like he did with Israel

'Pure' is perhaps not the correct word here, because no one is without sin except for Jesus the Christ (although it is one that the Scripture uses). 'Striving for holiness' would be a better description of what I meant. Paul told the Christians in Corinth to put out the ones who were persistent in (and even proud of) their sin. As I understand anabaptism (Dutch baptism mindedness, at least). the goal was to discipline those what were NOT seeking to be holy, so that they would either began to strive toward that objective, or be put out. Those who are merely 'attending church' are not a part of the Church. All those who are seeking righteousness through the grace of God in faith by the sacrifice of Jesus ARE a part of the Church. In that there is oneness. I DO wish, as I know you also do, that all who are a part of the Body of Christ - God's family, could GATHER together. I don't think I'll ever loose that "vision" I got from my 'Jesus People' involvement. I do not see a conflict between that aim, and the goal of a body of believers who are seeking to live holy lives.

[Valerie]

The call of Christ was to repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. His call was to follow Him. His call was to forsake all or you are not worthy to be His disciple.
None of which a child much less an infant can do!

His focus was the kingdom of God and it was not primarily about salvation.

The division is simply a focus on the reality of His kingdom now or a focus on salvation. Anyone who thinks you can be born into the church by infant baptism has to throw out the call of Christ to commit to Him - being born again and be alive in Him, experiencing the blessing of His Will on earth.

This didn’t happen in the 1500’s where some wrongly focused on salvation and missed the kingdom, it started early on.

For those who believe in infant baptism how do you reconcile infant baptism with the calls of Christ (that only people who aren’t children can do) and him only calling the Gospel the kingdom of heaven/God?



I will add I’m sceptical that the Protestant churches that came out of the reformation were worth it.

Jesus used children as an example of faith. He said also, suffer not the children to come unto Me.
Psalm 8:2
King James Bible
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

I think there is a difference of understanding of children between the ancient church and the Anabaptist Church and some Protestant churches because some Protestant churches do baptize infants. Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism. Of course as an adult if you come into the faith that would be a believer's baptism. But if the apostles taught to baptize your infants and children then they must have a different understanding than a lot of other denominations so I see in the ancient Church the Christian parents will have their infant baptized and raise them in the fear and nurture of the Lord. They are not seen as outside of the church or outside of the faith then while they are growing up.

I saw my first infant baptism in January. The baby was baptised & anointed with oul & Chrismated to receive the Holy Spirit & given the Eucharist & many prayers- the baby girl is dunked three times in a baptismal font and the look on her face when it was over was amazing to me. Her mother and father are very devout Christians I have the elbows confidence they will raise her in the fear and nurture of the Lord, but of course we do not lose our free will to fall away, backslide or what have you but she is on her way.

[Valerie]

They called marijuana the ™Gateway Drug" wonder if the Reformation whether Protestant or Anabaptism was the Gateway of where we are now -

Why wouldn’t the split of Catholics and Orthodox be that?
Or any number of false teachings well before the reformation?

The west (RC) is where the Reformation happened, not the East. But look what happened in the West-thousands of divisions all based on sola scriptura- it was not supposed to happen that way, isn't it obvious?