Do Plain Catholics exist?

[Josh]

Well, we reject writing outside of the Bible as being inspired scripture.

What would you suggest we add to scripture, what writings? What books?

[Soloist]

It's true though, Anabaptists pride themselves in simple reading, application and obedience to the Gospel. They reject deeper teachings that cannot be "proven" perhaps with more spirituality in understanding or mystery and so the typical response is rejection of it.

I’m sorry but the notion that there’s deeper spiritual truth in groups that kill their opponents… you do realize the reason why we have a Catholic doctrine and orthodox doctrine today, it’s because they killed many of their opponents.

So Constantine wanted peace because of a heretic spreading heresy wreaking havock on the Church. Wise move on his part but the idea by Protestants that the Catholics didn't come about until Constantine is clearly wrong. To me that's why it's been helpful to have quotes or teachings by those taught by Apostles so that the false assumptions that these came about after Constantine can show that NO- not everything was written down. But if it goes against the new interpretations of the Protestants (including Anabaptists) then most but not all, refuse to see. I'm not sure where the insult is.

The insult wasn’t over Constantine.
Your logic of Anabaptists being milk drinkers and not meat eaters over reverencing statues, icons, relics and infant baptism is a real stretch. Those are not deeper truths. Deeper truths have more to do with walking in holiness. Not killing your enemy, feeding your enemy, doing good to those who persecute you.

The argument for as much as you might say it’s heresy is really a stupid argument to begin with. Peter shouldn’t have picked a fight to begin with.

[Valerie]

Well, we reject writing outside of the Bible as being inspired scripture.

What would you suggest we add to scripture, what writings? What books?

So you reject the Holy Spirit stopped speaking? You do realize there were prophets in the new Church of the New covenant. Do you happen to know what all they had to say? That the Holy Spirit speaks?

[Josh]

Well, we reject writing outside of the Bible as being inspired scripture.

What would you suggest we add to scripture, what writings? What books?

So you reject the Holy Spirit stopped speaking? You do realize there were prophets in the new Church of the New covenant. Do you happen to know what all they had to say? That the Holy Spirit speaks?

I’m asking you what these books equal to scripture are.

[Valerie]

It's true though, Anabaptists pride themselves in simple reading, application and obedience to the Gospel. They reject deeper teachings that cannot be "proven" perhaps with more spirituality in understanding or mystery and so the typical response is rejection of it.

I’m sorry but the notion that there’s deeper spiritual truth in groups that kill their opponents… you do realize the reason why we have a Catholic doctrine and orthodox doctrine today, it’s because they killed many of their opponents.

So Constantine wanted peace because of a heretic spreading heresy wreaking havock on the Church. Wise move on his part but the idea by Protestants that the Catholics didn't come about until Constantine is clearly wrong. To me that's why it's been helpful to have quotes or teachings by those taught by Apostles so that the false assumptions that these came about after Constantine can show that NO- not everything was written down. But if it goes against the new interpretations of the Protestants (including Anabaptists) then most but not all, refuse to see. I'm not sure where the insult is.

The insult wasn’t over Constantine.
Your logic of Anabaptists being milk drinkers and not meat eaters over reverencing statues, icons, relics and infant baptism is a real stretch. Those are not deeper truths. Deeper truths have more to do with walking in holiness. Not killing your enemy, feeding your enemy, doing good to those who persecute you.

The argument for as much as you might say it’s heresy is really a stupid argument to begin with. Peter shouldn’t have picked a fight to begin with.

Heresy is a work of the flesh according to Galatians. When it threatens the Church it "kills". The Anabaptist don't fight with the sword but they do fight. They do spew. They did trample in their history and there are those I really do look up to, but not in these types of witch hunts.

[Soloist]

Well, we reject writing outside of the Bible as being inspired scripture.

What would you suggest we add to scripture, what writings? What books?

So you reject the Holy Spirit stopped speaking? You do realize there were prophets in the new Church of the New covenant. Do you happen to know what all they had to say? That the Holy Spirit speaks?

The Spirit doesn’t disagree with what He said.
Also, the writers don’t claim Spiritual basis for their teachings. They claim Apostolic authority.

[RZehr]

You don’t look up to Anabaptists who write mean words occasionally on an Internet forum. But you strongly uphold the spiritual leadership of EO, who both say mean things, and direct and bless themselves in killing their fellow EO people.
I suggest you find a clearer moral perspective to put these things in.

[Soloist]

Heresy is a work of the flesh according to Galatians. When it threatens the Church it "kills". The Anabaptist don't fight with the sword but they do fight. They do spew. They did trample in their history and there are those I really do look up to, but not in these types of witch hunts.

You do remember the history of Michael Sattler right? It was posted pretty recently… the spewing curses and violence was from those killing him.

[Valerie]

Well, we reject writing outside of the Bible as being inspired scripture.

What would you suggest we add to scripture, what writings? What books?

So you reject the Holy Spirit stopped speaking? You do realize there were prophets in the new Church of the New covenant. Do you happen to know what all they had to say? That the Holy Spirit speaks?

I’m asking you what these books equal to scripture are.

I never said there were books equal to Scripture. The Orthodox do see apocrypha books as inspired. And Oral teachings were inspired. Certainly Anabaptists dogma seems acceptable so you need to extend grace to to the Church that Jesus started with His Apostles

Do you accept the Scriptures that teach there were prophets in the early church? They speak for God- do you know what all they said? No, because people were not writing down the prophetic words in the early church to be recorded as Scripture. They were building the Church as Christ said. Oh, did He say it would start over 1500 years later? Was there a prophecy about that? No He said at the end, before Antichrist, there would be a falling away. Not at the beginning

[Josh]

I never said there were books equal to Scripture. The Orthodox do see apocrypha books as inspired.

So do most Anabaptists, myself included.

And Oral teachings were inspired.

Are these oral teachings written down anywhere? What are they? You keep saying they are inspired, but I’m asking what they are so I can read them for myself.

Do you accept the Scriptures that teach there were prophets in the early church? They speak for God- do you know what all they said? No, because people were not writing down the prophetic words in the early church to be recorded as Scripture. They were building the Church as Christ said. Oh, did He say it would start over 1500 years later? Was there a prophecy about that? No He said at the end, before Antichrist, there would be a falling away. Not at the beginning

Sure. I just don’t accept the Eastern Orthodox nor the Roman Catholic Church as somehow magically knowing what the truth is. For starters, they can’t even agree with each other on what apostolic authority and truth are.