Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Ernie]

So your understanding of candlestick removal is not based on a scripture text regarding candlestick removal as used in Rev 2:5 written to the church in Ephesus ? This candlestick removal was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. Nothing is said here about taking up the sword or not.

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

[Ernie]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

[ohio jones]

The reason that Churches formed from the Reformation forward have a vast array of baptism styles/doctrines & interpretations is because they all were going by Scripture-

Sometimes I almost get the impression that you think following Scripture is a bad thing.

How can you? I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. None of this discussion or my statements or observations discouraged following Scripture. I feel like Scriptures i brought up are ignored or dismissed.
Which Scripture taught Sprinkling and which Scripture taught immersion?
Which Scripture conveyed that the prophetic gifts of prophecy and spiritual gift of tongues no longer are part of the Church as Apostle Paul taught?
Should each of the myriads of denominations claiming to follow Scripture look/practice so different? Even the denominations themselves have changed or split into so many sects- is that following Scripture OJ? If all the Churches follow Scripture they should all look somewhat the same. Pentecostal Churches believe they are the closest because they have the Holy Spirit- when we were with them, they "Scripturally" conveyed what they believed wrong about all other Protestants, Anabaptists, Catholics & Orthodox "Scripturally" -if the Spiritual Gifts were not bring encouraged.
Of course i encourage Scripture- i just know not everything was written down. Scripture itself, says not everything was written down- if that would have been understood than maybe there would be more peace verses walls

I'm sorry if that felt like a personal attack. That was not intended; like most of my posts, a should be assumed even if I don't include it.

You may feel like we ignore the scriptures you bring up, but it feels to some of us like you've brought them up over and over for years, and when we explain the Anabaptist understanding of those scriptures (this is after all a Mennonite forum) it's not accepted. While you may have a "teachable spirit" I wonder if perhaps you've listened to too many teachers and become confused by the variety of teachings. Evaluate every teaching (including oral tradition) in comparison to scripture and accept only what best aligns with it.

I do not think that sprinkling as a mode of baptism, cessationism, or "independent" churches are in close alignment with scripture. But I'm not going to divide myself from someone on the basis of those issues, because I believe unity is more important. However, unity doesn't necessarily mean uniformity or that all churches should "look somewhat the same" -- if there's a core commitment to following Jesus as revealed in Scripture, there can be differences between churches in Canada, Congo, and China, or between Mennonite, Missionary, and Methodist denominations (just to use a few examples) but there can still be peace between them.

[Heirbyadoption]

Why would you think that there are Amish & Mennonites that have concluded Orthodox is the True & original Church & left Anabaptism? They didn't leave for a new pop up denomination but were convinced.

This is not hard for me to understand at all. All you need to do is convince people that they should be part of the original church (organization), and some will fall for it.

Why do Orthodox people leave their churches to become part of churches that follow Jesus? All someone or the Holy Spirit needs to do is convince them that Jesus’ church is those who follow Him and make him the Head. (Not those who claim some historical connection to Jesus.)
Jesus told the Jews that if they were Abraham’s seed, they would do the works of Abraham. Paul told the Romans that “a man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical.”
Those who follow Jesus and promote his teachings are the truly orthodox.

I appreciate the overarching thought here. This entire thread, and indeed most conversations I have with a few of my Orthodox friends, is the idea that the "oneness" (of the Church) to which the believer is called was somehow intended to be defined by organizational/denominational unity. I appreciate much about the Orthodox churches I have attended, but frankly, the emphasis upon being the "original" (the tenor of condescension aside) has always struck me as an utterly idolatrous misfocus (regardless what group or denomination promotes it) upon denominational structure/organization at the expense of Jesus' actual point of faithfulness to Him and His message. The truth of Ernie's final statement here resonates with me in its simplicity and applicability in seeking to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus.

So your understanding of candlestick removal is not based on a scripture text regarding candlestick removal as used in Rev 2:5 written to the church in Ephesus ? This candlestick removal was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. Nothing is said here about taking up the sword or not.

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

This resonates as well. In recognition of denominations like the Orthodox churches, HRCC, etc, I presume that even in their claims to have the authority of the Scriptures and oral doctrine (and perhaps teaching from later authorities, at least in the case of the HRCC), the understanding would be that said "oral" teachings (or any others in addition to the Biblical canon) would not contradict the teachings of Jesus and His apostles as we have in the written record, correct...? (said question is open for anybody, but especially those in such denominations like Max, Valerie, etc)...

Ergo, a thought that comes to mind on this subject, since it has popped up a few times in this conversation, the appeal to the authority of original "oral" teachings in addition to the preserved written Scriptures (whether promoted by Orthodox, Catholics, or others) is an convenient and nearly unassailable claim...because, after all, since it wasn't written down, we can only cling to the veracity of those who referenced such things and we must presume the purity of their motive and then the accuracy of their transmission. And basing their veracity primarily on them still being in a strain of the "original" church isn't exactly convincing - that's like telling my kids something exists because I'm your dad and I say so... Plus, defending things on the "oral" teachings of the apostles (and possibly subsequent church leaders) is halfway to an argument from silence, if you get right down to it. Insisting on using later historical references to defend earlier oral teaching is nice, except for the fact that most of those later historical references come from a time when there was demonstrable shifting away from the simple teachings of Jesus, making the accuracy of their transmission of earlier oral teachings highly suspect... Just my two cents on Orthodox and other Original Church ideology, not intended as a personal attack against any of their adherents.

[Sudsy]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

[JimFoxvog]

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”. (You are correct that they were stark naked, and we have historical records that show that early Christians also baptised naked, which is why baptisms of women were held at night to preserve their modesty.) Instead, care would be taken to pour the water very carefully upon the head.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice miqvah this way today.

What is your source for this? Everything I've heard or read has total immersion, not pouring, as part of the description.

[Ernie]

And for the record, just because someone or some church identifies as Anabaptist, Church of Christ, Slavic Pentecostal, etc., does not make me think that they are probably born again, following Jesus, still have their candlestick, etc. I won't make that deduction until I have seen what kind of fruit is coming from their lives.

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ?

Some believers understand scripture to say that war is justifiable when it is motivated by a desire for peace, or done in self-defence, or to protect the innocent, and when it is done in a just way. Under these conditions a Christian could go to war as an agent of his country.

I think we can be very wrong in our judgments as fruit inspectors regarding who is saved and who is not. The Matthew 7:15 text regarding fruit inspecting has to do with false prophets. Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

I don't judge such matters. I believe that I am on my way to heaven and if Jesus believes the same thing, I will be glad to spend eternity with anyone else Jesus decides to let in.

But while we are still here on earth...
Jesus tells us how we should live.
Jesus tells us that we will know people by their fruits.
Both Jesus and the Apostles tell us who has eternal life and who does not.
The apostles tell us who we as Christians should be separating ourselves from.

The rest I let up to God/Jesus.

[barnhart]

To whoever cares to respond as I am curious as to how far a pacifist Christian regards how God will judge professing believers who were and/or are involved in killings in acts of war.

Have you determined then that those professing believers that participated in wars and killing people in wars and believed they were instruments God used to stop evil, are lost ? Is this a kind of fruit that you believe forfeits one's salvation ? ....

Are all non-pacifist preachers, false prophets and believers on their way to hell if they have and/or are now involved in killing others during war times ?

I am not the judge and I am quite content to let God take his rightful place. You are asking questions that hold little interest for me.

A better question would be are they following Jesus as closely as they know how? If they aren't interested in living in Jesus kingdom now, when will they start? To be "saved" means to be delivered from the kingdoms of this world and their values to becoming a citizen of the heavenly kingdom and welcome it's values. Why would one whose eyes are turned to Jesus want to keep one foot in worldly values like waring and struggle.

Can you offer a scriptural understanding of one who is "saved" but does not accept the values of Jesus and his kingdom.

[Neto]

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”. (You are correct that they were stark naked, and we have historical records that show that early Christians also baptised naked, which is why baptisms of women were held at night to preserve their modesty.) Instead, care would be taken to pour the water very carefully upon the head.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice miqvah this way today.

What is your source for this? Everything I've heard or read has total immersion, not pouring, as part of the description.

Immersionists base their stance on the etymological structure of the Greek word, the literal etymological meaning of which requires complete immersion. But the question for Biblical interpretation is more complicated than that. It is necessary to look at how the word is used in other contexts in the Scripture, and also (if possible) how it was understood in secular documents as well. Within the Scripture, there are cases in which this same word does not involve total immersion. Other examples of this sort of thing are, for instance, the word translated 'church' in most English translations (including the KJV), the Greek word eklasia, made up of 'ek' out of, and a form of the verb meaning 'called out'. But this same word is used in Acts, where the 'whole' city of Ephesus was in an uproar, and gathered into the city hall. Finally the city administrator calms them down, telling them to disperse, because 'this is not a legal assembly, and will result in severe reprimands by the Roman authorities.' So the word should be understood within this framework. Adding additional meaning to the word 'church' is not exegetically justified. (Not that the church is not a group that have been 'called out', just that this understanding should not be said to rest on the etymological meaning of the word.) Another example where I once heard a sermon based on the etymological meaning is the word translated 'cheerful' in the verse that says "God loves a cheerful giver." The Greek word translated 'cheerful' in that verse is the word 'halarion' from which we get our English word 'hilarious'. So this preacher kept saying that 'God loves a hilarious giver.'

I don't have a problem with immersion - my own church background (Mennonite Brethren) wrote that requirement into their first statement of faith, and required everyone that had been baptized by some other mode to be re-baptized. (They relented in the early 60's, when they and the Krimmer Mennonite Brethren merged. The KMBs had come out of the Kleine Gemeinde, over the issue of missionary work.) I believe that the MEANING is more important than the MECHANICS. I have the same issue with those who write up long statements about the Atonement, saying very little about WHY God did it, and all about exactly HOW they think God accomplished it.

[joshuabgood]

So your understanding of candlestick removal is not based on a scripture text regarding candlestick removal as used in Rev 2:5 written to the church in Ephesus ? This candlestick removal was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. Nothing is said here about taking up the sword or not.

If you believe that regaining ones first love and close relationship with the Lord Jesus, is consistent with taking the lives of others and/or condoning those who do,(including the lives of others who profess faith in Jesus), then I am sorry but I don't have anything further to say.

Any natural reading of the teachings of Jesus, and any reasonable conclusions from the legacy of his witness, cement one to the suffering love ethos. I am convinced everybody knows this at one level. Only clever theology and cagey Biblicism result in anything else. Some people probably are genuinely misguided, but few coming back from war with actual combat experience romanticize it. I know that is strong...but also painfully obvious.

As Obama noted years ago to the Christian right-wing nationalists, wouldn't the teachings of Jesus pretty much do away with the defense department and military spending. What did they do...gnash their teeth. He was right though...they knew it and he knew it. Too bad nobody followed through on it.