The Danger of Reactionary Theology

[Sudsy]

Menno even excommunicated the Swiss Brethren for not accepting his strict views on excommunication.

MattY, I just want to say that thus sentence made me laugh out loud.

Luther also "excommunicated" Zwingli and the reformed church in Geneva because they couldn't agree on the metaphysics at play in the Lord's Supper.

And speaking back to Menno Simon's, a reactionary theology he had was the "divine flush" theory of the incarnation. A protestant reformer was reacting against the Roman theology of the immaculate conception (the idea that Mary was sinless), and described Jesus as having Original Sin. Menno reacted against this theology and posited that Jesus wasn't exactly conceived of Mary, but that Mary was just a vessel for carrying Jesus, and contributed nothing material to his conception. The incarnation of God passed through her like water passes through a pipe, but Jesus was not, properly understood, incubated in her womb as with a normal child.

I think these days a good number of Anabaptists and Kingdom Christian's like David Bercot are very reactionary against assurance of salvation, or eternal security, or once-saved-always-saved, whatever you want to call it. This theology has a lot of nuance and is very Biblical, but imo Bercot and the Mennonites/anabaptists/Kingdom Christiand in his camp tend to react against a strawman of this theology instead of seeking to understand and elaborate a well-thought-out biblical expression of the doctrine of salvific security.

Agreed with all of this. Appreciate the interaction. I also just want to ask, is a divine flush similar to a royal flush?

What ? You know what a 'royal flush' is ? Must have been from your pre-Christian days.

Yes, it is interesting to look at the variations even in Orthopraxy in Anabaptists or Pentecostals or Baptists and others. Anabaptists seem to label these as going from 'liberal' to 'conservative' and ranges within each of these categories. Another label is from 'worldly' to 'holy'. On both ends even salvation is sometimes in question. On the 'worldly/liberal' extreme are they really saved ? On the 'holy/conservative' extreme are they really saved ?

And the Orthopraxy of how 'plain' an Anabaptist should live and what it literally means to 'follow Jesus'. Anabaptism seems to me to have more divisions (splits) on Orthopraxy than many of the other groups.

This all brings me back to what is the essential belief(s) that keeps one from ending up in hell ? What is one going to believe that will get them to heaven ? Isn't that what really matters when all is said and done ?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This all brings me back to what is the essential belief(s) that keeps one from ending up in hell ? What is one going to believe that will get them to heaven ? Isn't that what really matters when all is said and done ?

Your final question is the most important, and the answer is "no". Jesus was concerned that people would follow Him, and acknowledge his real authority over heaven and earth. People are selfish and are only concerned with "what I get out of it", so getting to Heaven/avoiding Hell becomes all that they care about. But that is only tangentially related to the actual gospel spelled out in the entirety of the New Testament. It's a self-centered false gospel focused on a ticket to heaven and fire insurance from hell and loses the actual focus of the gospel, which is a call to follow Jesus as king.

[ken_sylvania]

Menno even excommunicated the Swiss Brethren for not accepting his strict views on excommunication.

When was this?

[MattY]

Menno even excommunicated the Swiss Brethren for not accepting his strict views on excommunication.

When was this?

1559 I believe, as a result of the Strasbourg conference of 1557. See here under (3):
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Stras ... onferences

Peter Hoover wrote about it in The Secret of the Strength. Also see this book "Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists" (page 23 of the preview, shown as page 10 of the book): https://www.plough.com/-/media/files/pl ... .pdf?la=en

[Josh]

People who don’t want to follow Jesus now aren’t going to want to follow him in eternity either. This seems rather obvious to me.

[Neto]

Menno even excommunicated the Swiss Brethren for not accepting his strict views on excommunication.

When was this?

1559 I believe, as a result of the Strasbourg conference of 1557. See here under (3):
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Stras ... onferences

Peter Hoover wrote about it in The Secret of the Strength. Also see this book "Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists" (page 23 of the preview, shown as page 10 of the book): https://www.plough.com/-/media/files/pl ... .pdf?la=en

I read through the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia article, and it doesn't say that Menno himself issued any statement of excommunication over this issue of "marital avoidance". (Rather, it says "the Dutch elders pronounced the ban....")
But the important question is What do the Scriptures say? Remember that in that era, the ban was not used for petty things like "wearing the wrong clothes", owning forbidden 'conveniences'" etc. These were issued based on disagreements over the application of direct Scripture. If one maintains that spousal avoidance in the case of gross unrepentant sin is not meant in Scripture, then what is the Scriptural basis for that position? (The Scripture that deals with a believer staying with an unbelieving spouse, does not appear to be dealing with an apostate "unbeliever", but one who has never believed. Other Scriptures draw a stark distinction between the "never having believed unbeliever" and the apostate former believer.)

[Sudsy]

This all brings me back to what is the essential belief(s) that keeps one from ending up in hell ? What is one going to believe that will get them to heaven ? Isn't that what really matters when all is said and done ?

Your final question is the most important, and the answer is "no". Jesus was concerned that people would follow Him, and acknowledge his real authority over heaven and earth. People are selfish and are only concerned with "what I get out of it", so getting to Heaven/avoiding Hell becomes all that they care about. But that is only tangentially related to the actual gospel spelled out in the entirety of the New Testament. It's a self-centered false gospel focused on a ticket to heaven and fire insurance from hell and loses the actual focus of the gospel, which is a call to follow Jesus as king.

I don't think it is selfish to believe and accept the greatest gift God could ever give us as written in John 3:16. When I am offered a gift, it is not selfish of me to accept it.

Jesus spoke about hell than anyone we read of in the NT. I have known many who have become Jesus followers through a message on hell and when they put their faith in Jesus to save them from their sins and ultimate hell, they are born again. Then being born again the change in them gives them a desire to pursue a life of pleasing the One who saved them.

I also believe there are those who do not believe in Jesus in a way that they are saved and born again, perhaps like the one you described. They treat salvation as a quick formula to escape hell and make heaven when they die but have no intention of making Jesus both Saviour and Lord. Saviour, yes but Lord, no. Some think water baptism is their ticket to heaven. Others think there are all kinds of other commands of Jesus and NT writings that they must follow or they will lose this gift of salvation.

My comment about what is essential was with regard to all the variations of beliefs that have been noted within Christianity. Seems to me that one can follow various beliefs about Jesus and what a Christian should act like but unless a person is born again and the Spirit of God comes to live within a person, then all their religious God following is of no avail. The Pharisees in Jesus day were very committed to religious ways but their hearts were not in tune with God until some, like Paul, accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

I believe I can be a born again follower of Jesus and believe in the Calvin TULIP doctrine or in the Oneness Pentecostal non-trinitarian view or be a Salvationist that has not been baptised in water or a RC with their unique views on Mary, etc. or a 'not plain Mennonite' and if I have put my faith and trust in Jesus and are born again, I have, am and will be saved when final judgment takes place.

As some often note, the thief on the cross believed in a way that was acceptable to Jesus. He recognized who Jesus is, acknowledged his own sin and Jesus accepted him into Paradise.

I believe the Gospel that saves us is about what Jesus did to save us from our sins. Jesus saves us from the penalty of sin, the power of sin and someday the very presence of sin. When truly believed we receive a new heart (way of thinking and valuing) as the Holy Spirit comes to live in us and He will guide us and encourage us to know more about what Jesus taught and live a life to please Him. That begins with a 'new birth'. That is my understanding of the Gospel that saves us.

[MattY]

When was this?

1559 I believe, as a result of the Strasbourg conference of 1557. See here under (3):
https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Stras ... onferences

Peter Hoover wrote about it in The Secret of the Strength. Also see this book "Later Writings of the Swiss Anabaptists" (page 23 of the preview, shown as page 10 of the book): https://www.plough.com/-/media/files/pl ... .pdf?la=en

I read through the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia article, and it doesn't say that Menno himself issued any statement of excommunication over this issue of "marital avoidance". (Rather, it says "the Dutch elders pronounced the ban....")
But the important question is What do the Scriptures say? Remember that in that era, the ban was not used for petty things like "wearing the wrong clothes", owning forbidden 'conveniences'" etc. These were issued based on disagreements over the application of direct Scripture. If one maintains that spousal avoidance in the case of gross unrepentant sin is not meant in Scripture, then what is the Scriptural basis for that position? (The Scripture that deals with a believer staying with an unbelieving spouse, does not appear to be dealing with an apostate "unbeliever", but one who has never believed. Other Scriptures draw a stark distinction between the "never having believed unbeliever" and the apostate former believer.)

Correction: those involved in the disagreement with the Dutch Anabaptists were apparently "High Germans" (from Southern Germany and along the Rhine) and in fellowship with the Swiss Anabaptists, not Swiss themselves.

Although it was not only Menno, he was involved as one of the leaders. Earlier, in 1556, there had been a meeting between Menno and the High Germans. Apparently both sides had come away thinking their positions could be reconciled and the other side was open to moving in their direction. This would cause frustration later.

The 1557 letter from the High Germans in the book is conciliatory, hoping to avoid a schism, with lots of references to peace, love, and unity. But it was without success. Neither side was without fault in the debacle that followed. Dirk Phillips and Menno both responded, firmly holding to the stricter position. The High German leaders apparently followed up with a 1559 pamphlet that was harsher and attacked Menno (now lost, but we can surmise its tone and content from Menno's response in January 1560). Apparently they called Menno an "unstable weathercock" who changed his position on the ban. (It's true, earlier in 1556 he had written a letter in which he had expressed an opinion that a spouse should be allowed to stay with a banned marriage partner, not be required to leave, but Phillips and Bouwens persuaded him to take the harsher position). But Menno accused them of saying that they would implement the stricter position, according to his recollection of the conversation at their meeting; so who was really the "unstable weathercock"? He called them liars, profaners, and slanderers. (By the time he wrote this in 1560, the Dutch leaders had already excommunicated the Germans).

Scriptures that talk about fulfilling one's obligations to his family (Eph. 6:1-3; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Peter 3:1-2) don't have an exception for apostate former believers. In the letter, the Germans said that the discipline of shunning should be applied in compatibility with Scripture, considering "the nature of the sin", with the goal of repentance, and "with aid, mercy, and helpfulness to them when necessary." They expressed "fervent prayer" that the Dutch leaders would be satisfied with it, and would take it as a "brotherly admonition" rather than a command. And they hoped that the Dutch leaders wouldn't make husbands and wives separate because of shunning. "The commandment regarding marriage far outweighs the one regarding shunning."

I don't see in Scripture that it says to use removal/excommunication from fellowship on those who disagree about how to apply Scripture (rather than on those who deny core doctrines of the faith or live in unrepentant sin). We don't excommunicate or discipline people from the two Rosedale Network churches in our town, including people who've left our church to join them, even though there are important disagreements in application (i.e. no head covering). The Dutch and High Germans weren't from the same congregation, or even the same geographic area.

[Josh]

I don't see in Scripture that it says to use removal/excommunication from fellowship on those who disagree about how to apply Scripture (rather than on those who deny core doctrines of the faith or live in unrepentant sin). We don't excommunicate or discipline people from the two Rosedale Network churches in our town, including people who've left our church to join them, even though there are important disagreements in application (i.e. no head covering). The Dutch and High Germans weren't from the same congregation, or even the same geographic area.

Doesn't this reveal what you actually view as doctrine worth keeping versus things that are "optional", though? The head covering is obviously optional - one can simply switch to a different "dealership" much as someone might switch from driving a 1960 Dodge without headrests to a 2007 Jeep with headrests. I personally view disobedience to the head covering, particularly someone who has been under teaching and example of it, to be living in obvious unrepentant sin. I would say the same about someone who abandons nonresistance and starts carrying a gun.

[Sudsy]

I believe it is a good thing our salvation and our rewards won't be judged someday on what other Christians believe is sinning and what is not sinning based on their interpretations of scripture.

Jesus sure put the Pharisees straight with their high opinion of themselves and their religious ways. They looked down upon others with a 'holier than thou' attitude and Jesus kept pointing to their spiritual heart condition and how their pride in their religious ways was more focused on the external than on the internal. They were side-tracked by showing off how religious they were in their various ways and beliefs.

The 'woes of the Pharisees' is a good text to consider often to see if our hearts have also wandered into an area of religious pride and we have drifted into putting down other professing believers with our interpretation and application of scriptures. Sometimes this drift may appear to have some form of godliness but it results in cumbersome and onerous burdens added to scripture that make it more like the ways of the Pharisees in Jesus day.

I think this is a common danger when a Christian is quite zealous in their walk with God. They begin to think their ways of being a Christian are the right and only ways. Pride is often the case and one of the prime areas that God hates. I think this can be a huge struggle for some more than others and the on-going Spirit's filling is our solution to keeping it in check. Been there, done that and continue needing the Spirit's filling after all these years. That old fleshly nature still wants to get control.

https://www.gotquestions.org/scribes-and-Pharisees.html