Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Valerie]

I don't know of you can be sure of this Ernie. Evidence is clear that what we see in the west in Christianity is an attempt to follow Apostles & NT Pattern- but it is so completely different in every single denomination its clear we are all over the place.

I believe the main reason western churches are all over the place is because the majority of churches in the 3rd and 4th century began allowing unconverted people to become part of the church and allowed leaders to become "lords over God's heritage".
The Protestant Reformation was a reaction to this. But instead of going back to the blueprint (the New Testament) they tried reforming a system that could never be reformed. Church as understood by the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants was not something in which Christ could be the Head. Christ cannot be the head of something that is persecuting followers of Jesus. When people follow Jesus, there is amazing similarities, even if they come from different cultures. Mennonites, Amish, German Baptists, Apostolics, Church of Christ people all sat together in prisons during World War 1 because they would not fight. Many Slavic Baptists and Slavic Pentecostals refuse to take the lives of others, and they also suffer for it. They find much in common with the aforementioned groups. How is it that all over the world, people who follow Jesus end up having much in common?

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 your understanding Ernie.
Really none of us lived through the 3rd & 4th century to really understand the heart of the Church in hoping unconverted souls would convert by being part of the Church- don't we see this hope even today in many churches? I feel like i want to be charitable to their motives but without actually living through that era and being eyewitness to what was happening I can't really feel like I could judge their hearts really only God can judge anyway but they're hearts might have been pure in allowing this. However I agree that a true Christian should not be persecuted by other Christians- challenged, admonished, yes- persecuted, no. I assume that the Roman Catholics felt attacked themselves in the uprisings against them because I have read the history about how anabaptist people would show up in their churches- although not killing them- certainly attacking them verbally - not sure if that would be a type of persecution or not-

[Valerie]

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.

Thank you OJ, I understand.

Yes ifnorance probably is bliss if you're bor. & raised in a particular denomination and never open yourself up to consider what you learn from others. It was in so doing well being in the Pentecostal churches and hearing negative comments about me changing by covering my head and my dress etc and hearing their misunderstandings about Anabaptists that started us on a pursuit that sometimes I'm sorry for if we would have just remained Pentecostal however saying things changing and some what we considered false prophets entering in we had to make a move but where?

The very fact that one of our friends was a non-believer who did become a baptized believer but was very frustrated at the amount of choices of churches and his conveying that to us and how it seemed to be truly upsetting him also is part of what weighs heavy on me when someone who doesn't know where to turn but wants to seek the truth has to decide who has it the closest to Jesus and the apostles teaching? We could really understand his frustration he has since passed a very confused Christian who ended up dropping out of going to church at all.

[Valerie]

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.

Having attended a very wonderful Orthodox Church for a year while we were trying to understand the Orthodox Church having never even heard of it my first 50 years of life or at least not noticing it, I have to disagree with you at least in the ones that we visited which were many, and when we stayed with for a year until we needed a break! If I would have detected that their attitude about being the original church was idolatry we would have ran out at the first inclination of that! In no way that we consider that position idolatry. If you are contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints and all these other denominations have sprouted up through the 2,000 years that they've remained, they're contending for the faith that they believe was delivered by Jesus and the apostles is not one of idolatry but in defense of everyone's attacks against them. Wow this may appear as idolatry you have to put yourself in their shoes- I sense the same sort of proclamation from anabaptist that could be seen as idolatry but that would be a misunderstanding of their position wouldn't it? I think idolatry is a pretty strong accusation and again if that's what we sensed when we were with them we would have wanted no part of that- in reality it gave us more understanding why they feel they need to maintain that position it is to help people find truth and clear up misinformation. Recently the priest and his wife of the church we attended for a year came to our house for dinner because they were doing house blessings and even though we never joined they've been very gracious to us. In all sincerity in discussing this because there are many people coming to the Orthodox Church they said recently, the priest wife said "why wouldn't people want to know the truth?" (They themselves were converted to orthodoxy from other Protestant denomination 30 years ago or so).

I suppose I would be careful about accusing them of idolatry and maintaining this because they are up against so much-

[JimFoxvog]

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”.
...
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. ...
I believe that the MEANING is more important than the MECHANICS.
...

I agree, but as far as I know, the mikvah, which is what it seems baptism was modeled on, was and is a practice of full immersion. To many Jewish people, this part of the mechanics is essential. But, I believe, God looks at the heart, not the details of the action. If given a choice, I'd suggest immersion (or real wine for communion, for that matter), but believe the ordinance is not invalid when not as authentic to history.

[Josh]

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.

Miqvah is well understood. If baptising yourself, the person might have to get fully immersed if the water was fresh and clean, but if a temple assistant was around they would pour overtop with particular focus on making sure the hair and head and beard were saturated. Hasids continue this tradition to this day.

[Ernie]

Having attended a very wonderful Orthodox Church for a year while we were trying to understand the Orthodox Church having never even heard of it my first 50 years of life or at least not noticing it, I have to disagree with you at least in the ones that we visited which were many, and when we stayed with for a year until we needed a break! If I would have detected that their attitude about being the original church was idolatry we would have ran out at the first inclination of that! In no way that we consider that position idolatry. If you are contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints and all these other denominations have sprouted up through the 2,000 years that they've remained, they're contending for the faith that they believe was delivered by Jesus and the apostles is not one of idolatry but in defense of everyone's attacks against them. Wow this may appear as idolatry you have to put yourself in their shoes- I sense the same sort of proclamation from anabaptist that could be seen as idolatry but that would be a misunderstanding of their position wouldn't it? I think idolatry is a pretty strong accusation and again if that's what we sensed when we were with them we would have wanted no part of that- in reality it gave us more understanding why they feel they need to maintain that position it is to help people find truth and clear up misinformation. Recently the priest and his wife of the church we attended for a year came to our house for dinner because they were doing house blessings and even though we never joined they've been very gracious to us. In all sincerity in discussing this because there are many people coming to the Orthodox Church they said recently, the priest wife said "why wouldn't people want to know the truth?" (They themselves were converted to orthodoxy from other Protestant denomination 30 years ago or so).

Many more Anabaptists convert to Protestantism as compared with those that convert to Orthodoxy. Possibly there is one Anabaptist that converts to Orthodoxy for every 1000 that convert to Protestantism. The 1000 that convert to Protestantism also believe they want to know the truth and have found it in the Protestant church. So if someone is going to base "what is truth" on conversions from Anabaptism, wouldn't Protestantism be the apparent true religion?

[Ernie]

Really none of us lived through the 3rd & 4th century to really understand the heart of the Church in hoping unconverted souls would convert by being part of the Church- don't we see this hope even today in many churches? I feel like i want to be charitable to their motives but without actually living through that era and being eyewitness to what was happening I can't really feel like I could judge their hearts really only God can judge anyway but they're hearts might have been pure in allowing this. However I agree that a true Christian should not be persecuted by other Christians- challenged, admonished, yes- persecuted, no. I assume that the Roman Catholics felt attacked themselves in the uprisings against them because I have read the history about how anabaptist people would show up in their churches- although not killing them- certainly attacking them verbally - not sure if that would be a type of persecution or not-

I hear this argument sometimes but it does not hold any validity to my way of thinking.

It would be similar to saying that we didn't live at the time of the Pharisees and Sadducees so we can't really judge their hearts. Jesus told them, "You are guilty for the blood of Able to Zechariah." (5500 BC - 520 BC)
The Pharisees and Sadducees were 500+ years removed from the death of Zechariah. Why did Jesus implicate them? Because they would have done the same thing had they lived in those days. And they were just about to kill Jesus.

Christians ever since the life of Jesus have had many examples of people who were following Jesus and living exemplary lives. Yet there have been many who were/are part of the State churches who challenged, admonished, threatened, mocked, or persecuted them for what they believed and stood for. These State church people should have learned from the godly people living around them and allowed their example to motivate them to repentance.(as it did Menno Simons)
(There were people in State churches who did respect these godly lives and urged their fellow church members to leave them alone - like Gamaliel did with the Sandhedrin, concerning the apostles.)

I think we could accurately say that those who did not learn from the godly people who lived before them and around them, but rather challenged, admonished, threatened, mocked, or persecuted them, are guilty for the blood of James the Greater, all the way up to their own generation.

No Christian is going to be able to convince Jesus on judgment day by saying, "I never knew of a better way." They had the example of Jesus and many others. And they had their conscience.

[Neto]

....
(There were people in State churches who did respect these godly lives and urged their fellow church members to leave them alone - like Gamaliel did with the Sandhedrin, concerning the apostles.)
....

In the Dutch context, these people were called "the lamb-hearted", and they were a consistent subject in prayers for blessing and salvation.

[Neto]

....
I assume that the Roman Catholics felt attacked themselves in the uprisings against them because I have read the history about how anabaptist people would show up in their churches- although not killing them- certainly attacking them verbally - not sure if that would be a type of persecution or not-

Not having ever heard or read anything of this claim, it would be of interest to see references. (Unless calling them out for their wickedness is to be considered a verbal attack - that there is plenty of in Martyrs' Mirror.)

[MaxPC]

Some of my random thoughts inspired by the thoughtful discourse of this thread:

From the beginning, the Early Church tended to divide themselves into smaller groups, usually according to culture or even which disciple first brought the Good News to them. (1 Corinthians 3).

We see similar behaviors today, even within a denomination or fellowship. As humans our instincts tend toward smaller groups/clans/families.

God is quite tolerant of our eccentricities (unless they involve abominations, then He will exercise due consequences).

A church/denomination that becomes a political theocracy in order to control the earthly kingdoms will fall just as the secular governments fall.

We can only control our personal choices to follow Christ through obedience to the Bible and the teachings of our chosen fellowship.

We cannot and should not violate the Free Will of others whereby those who have not chosen our fellowship (non-members) are forced to obey our fellowship’s Confession and values. Neither should non-members seek to impose their value systems upon us in violation of our Free Will and consciences.

There are no perfect churches or fellowships. There are churches and fellowships who work to seek God and obey Him. No group does this perfectly because every membership has fallible humans. Romans 3:23