orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

General Christian Theology
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by silentreader »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote: We don't read about 'child dedication' in the New Testament. But a child raised in the fear of the Lord and of course Apostle Paul called the children "holy" so I think that leaving them 'out' of taking part in the communion until they're older, well these little ones already believe, since I had been going for awhile to Orthodox Church, I witnessed their faith and love for Jesus. Of course, Jesus saw them that way too, He told US to have faith like THEM- for such is the Kingdom of Heaven- it's a beautiful picture of Christ's feelings about children- they do have faith!
I agree this practise of child dedications goes back to the OT just like using musical instruments in worship. My guess is that most Anabaptists view children as in a saved state until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves what they will believe and some chose not to believe in Christ. What the Schleitheim confession says is - underlined mine -
Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.
Some very stern words about the pope and child baptism. I prefer dialogue like we are having to consider all the possible ways of looking at this and appreciate reading others explanations of the RC and Orthodox views.
I'm not sure I guess, whether 'saved' or 'uncondemned', or is that splitting hairs?
Seems 'saved' would suggest no further need of salvation? Or does that become OSAS?
Last edited by silentreader on Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote: We don't read about 'child dedication' in the New Testament. But a child raised in the fear of the Lord and of course Apostle Paul called the children "holy" so I think that leaving them 'out' of taking part in the communion until they're older, well these little ones already believe, since I had been going for awhile to Orthodox Church, I witnessed their faith and love for Jesus. Of course, Jesus saw them that way too, He told US to have faith like THEM- for such is the Kingdom of Heaven- it's a beautiful picture of Christ's feelings about children- they do have faith!
I agree this practise of child dedications goes back to the OT just like using musical instruments in worship. My guess is that most Anabaptists view children as in a saved state until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves what they will believe and some chose not to believe in Christ. What the Schleitheim confession says is - underlined mine -

You do realize though- that not everyone dedicated their child like the couple of references we read in the OT- that meant you were literally 'giving' your child- (and Tradition of the Church teaches that Jesus mother Mary, was dedicated like this and raised in the temple)- but under the NT Church, we don't read about any examples of this- it is really more of a Protestant invention based on a couple of OT examples but even then, Protestants don't literraly give their child to the Lord like that- all Hebrew children were raised as part of the 'elect'. The couple examples of dedication were quite sacrificial-
Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.
Some very stern words about the pope and child baptism. I prefer dialogue like we are having to consider all the possible ways of looking at this and appreciate reading others explanations of the RC and Orthodox views.
Well I don't mean to be contrary, but I do understand the reasons for baptizing children, and for baptizing converts- I think God is pleased with both.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: Well I don't mean to be contrary, but I do understand the reasons for baptizing children, and for baptizing converts- I think God is pleased with both.
And I understand the reasons for both men and women to be in leadership roles and that God is pleased with both. :)
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Wayne in Maine wrote:The OP has nothing to do with Eastern Orthodoxy or Oneness Pentecostalism, it has to do with Plain Catholics and their common theology with early Anabaptism.
Absolutely- but when others got in on this (which is probably why Max wanted pm) and brought up the biggest issue of Baptism- and Boot brought up the biggest 'sin' accusation towards the Anabaptists was 'rebaptizing', I thought because EO & RCC were 'one' for centuries on most things/understandings of the Church- that EO's explanation why 're-baptizing' is considered sin, if one had a proper baptism to begin with- and therefore became a member of the Church taking part in Sacraments as a Christian- and then to say all that was 'false' before- gave me at least more understanding of why that was seen as sin- I realize EO didn't have a reformation to deal with, in the east but it helped my understanding into this whole issue of 'rebaptizing' being considered so wrong- I had the most simplistic understanding of baptizing, it's been helpful to learn for me- to understand the uproar that split the Church in thousands of sects
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Hats Off »

[quote="Valerie"but it helped my understanding into this whole issue of 'rebaptizing' being considered so wrong- I had the most simplistic understanding of baptizing, it's been helpful to learn for me- to understand the uproar that split the Church in thousands of sects[/quote]

Are the RCs and EO sects or what exactly is a "sect"?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Hats Off wrote:[quote="Valerie"but it helped my understanding into this whole issue of 'rebaptizing' being considered so wrong- I had the most simplistic understanding of baptizing, it's been helpful to learn for me- to understand the uproar that split the Church in thousands of sects
Are the RCs and EO sects or what exactly is a "sect"?[/quote]

Everything I have read regarding Church history from the Apostles forward, would not call RC's & EO sects- in fact we were just in a Christian bookstore last night and there were publications and timelines we looked at (and these were not from RC OR EO publications at all) that showed the Church undivided until 1054 A.D. when the Great Schism ocurred- so really it seems that it was recognized that there was one Church- (and some that schismed out of her) but in the timelines we were looking at last night in this publication- it showed after the Great Schism of 1054 A.D. where the Eastern Orthodox and Rome parted- from where Rome parted then all the denominations stemed from the West- the East never experienced a 'reformation' or an attempt at starting the Church over- we have learned it is a conservative #, at least over 26,000 sects came out of the Western Church's Reformation and the furtherance of divisions/schisms and this would be called 'sects' or sectarianism. Virtually every denominatio has sects/divisions under their own 'main' denomination head- (whomever started thse to begin with, because they were started by man/men- the EO & RC do not have a 'man' who began their Churches-
Sectariansm is outside of God's will for His Church- for a house divided cannot stand. It certainly cannot give the appearance of unity- or of the Holy Spirit speaking through His people as 'one voice'

But simply put- the NT refers to 'sects' within Israel- they were in God's elect- example the Pharisees and Saducees were 2 of many 'sects' within Judaism- they are referred to that way in Scripture-

In the NT Church a sect would be groups that break off the main Church and then it seems those groups have continued through the Church age to splt (sect) more and more-

This is the way we have been shown- perhaps others see it differently- but the way it's been shown to us, I have no doubt is true- because all we have to do is look around us.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by silentreader »

Hats Off wrote:[quote="Valerie"but it helped my understanding into this whole issue of 'rebaptizing' being considered so wrong- I had the most simplistic understanding of baptizing, it's been helpful to learn for me- to understand the uproar that split the Church in thousands of sects
Are the RCs and EO sects or what exactly is a "sect"?[/quote]

No offence intended HO, but when I saw this post I immediately thought of Proverbs 26:17. It probably applies in at least some ways.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

Post by appleman2006 »

So what is all entailed in Eastern Orthodox? Greek? Russian? Ukrainian? Romanian? Coptic? Do all of these actually share the communion table? I know that for a period of over 80 years the Russian orthodox did not even share between it's eastern and western parts.

I think to say that there are no schisms between the orthodox churches is a bit of a stretch IMO.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

appleman2006 wrote:So what is all entailed in Eastern Orthodox? Greek? Russian? Ukrainian? Romanian? Coptic? Do all of these actually share the communion table? I know that for a period of over 80 years the Russian orthodox did not even share between it's eastern and western parts.

I think to say that there are no schisms between the orthodox churches is a bit of a stretch IMO.
It is not a bit of a stretch, it is a total fabrication, that could only be parroted by someone who only learned history from the "victor."

There are some who would maintain, correctly I believe, that the ENTIRE Russian Orthodox church is schismic. Ever hear of the "Old Believers" or "Old Ritualists." They objected to a change in liturgy and practice back in the 1660's if I recall correctly. In a sense, they were entirely correct, as was later shown:

From Wikipedia article on Old Believers:

:Golubinsky, Dmitriyevsky, Kartashov and Kapterev, among others, demonstrated that the rites, rejected and condemned by the church reforms, were genuine traditions of Orthodox Christianity that had been altered in Greek usage during the 15th–16th centuries, but remained unchanged in Russia. The pre-Nikonian liturgical practices, including some elements of the Russian typicon, Oko Tserkovnoe, were demonstrated to have preserved earlier Byzantine practices, being closer to the earlier Byzantine texts than some later Greek customs."

However, they were ruthlessly persecuted by both the EO church and the Russian government. This gal was being hauled off to die in a sealed off dungeon from starvation:

[img]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers#/media/File:Boyaryna_Morozova_by_V.Surikov_-_sketch_04_(Tretyakov_gallery).jpg[/img]

So, anyone who claims an undivided church without schism just has not taken a critical look at history.

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

Re: orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

Post by Bootstrap »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:So, anyone who claims an undivided church without schism just has not taken a critical look at history.
I have seen diagrams that show the undivided church staying the course while everyone else splits off into sects. It's easy to draw that kind of diagram, just proclaim that you were right every time there was a division. I have seen similar diagrams in the Mennonite tradition, showing how some sects took the wrong position on Sunday School while the real believers continued to be faithful.

Let's face it: the Body of Christ is divided. Often, we are the ones who are dividing it. We cannot fix that problem by telling everyone they have to join the same denomination, ours. What we can do is keep pointing to the common core of faith that all true Christians share.

What can we do to focus more on how we understand the faith, and less on the disagreements we have with the Orthodox? I don't see how any discussion about whether theirs is the one true church can bear good fruit here. I think it would be helpful if the topic of the Orthodox weren't so common here, perhaps bringing it up less and letting threads on the subject die out faster would be helpful.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply