JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 4:26 pm
They freely quoted from the OT and apocryphal books. There wasn’t a sharp distinction between two dispensations.
I disagree. The majority clearly articulated how the Old Testament ended and the New Testament is now in effect. They also show how the New realties supercede the old. Here is a sampling.
I think there are some major assumptions being made with some of these quotes. The entire OT is not a "shadow"...nor is it all the OT equate to "the Law/ Sinai/ Mosaic Covenant". "The Law" is specific to parts of Exodus to Deuteronomy. Some OT prophecies by the prophets are still relevant to us today and Acts 3:18-21 speaks to that fact.
I agree that the entire OT is not a shadow. I mentioned that in my comments about Nick.
The point we are debating here, though, is whether the early Anabaptists as a whole (who had common theology and practice) saw a sharp distinction between the two dispensations. I think they did. JohnH thinks they did not.
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Hello, which comment is this?, I cannot find it by clicking the link.
Go to this link and search for the word "allegiance". (or "coffee" )
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
JayP wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:43 am
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
It is quite rare to hear a young person articulate this sort of theology outside of Anabaptist settings. It is refreshing to hear parts of his discourse being spoken in a public setting.
This does not mean that his theology aligns perfectly with Anabaptist theology or even that the underlying premises are the same.
2 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
JayP wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:43 am
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
Mennonites like confirmation bias, or at least the ones who intersect with the personality trait of “I am a good person because I hold the right opinions” do. So this particular type of person likes hearing people reaffirm how right they are.
JayP wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:43 am
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
It is quite rare to hear a young person articulate this sort of theology outside of Anabaptist settings. It is refreshing to hear parts of his discourse being spoken in a public setting.
This does not mean that his theology aligns perfectly with Anabaptist theology or even that the underlying premises are the same.
I obviously don't know his background but if he has roots in the American black church, there is some precedent for an outsider theology that critiques the mainstream church and it's affinity for political power.
JayP wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:43 am
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
It is quite rare to hear a young person articulate this sort of theology outside of Anabaptist settings. It is refreshing to hear parts of his discourse being spoken in a public setting.
This does not mean that his theology aligns perfectly with Anabaptist theology or even that the underlying premises are the same.
I obviously don't know his background but if he has roots in the American black church, there is some precedent for an outsider theology that critiques the mainstream church and it's affinity for political power.
… which also doesn’t have much history at all of promoting biblical nonresistance.
JayP wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 8:43 am
I have no idea what the point of this thread is. CK, despite having many positive values, was clearly a politically motivated figure who self identified as a Christian. Are we surprises his view of politics, church and state, are far different from any Anabaptist or any Christian recognizing Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world?
I am just saying I am confused where this thread can go
Mennonites like confirmation bias, or at least the ones who intersect with the personality trait of “I am a good person because I hold the right opinions” do. So this particular type of person likes hearing people reaffirm how right they are.
This comment belongs in the Stereotyping and Overgeneralizing People and Institutions thread, IMO. Where have you gotten the training or ability to read other peoples' thoughts? I might be interested in applying...
Ernie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 6:31 pm
I disagree. The majority clearly articulated how the Old Testament ended and the New Testament is now in effect. They also show how the New realties supercede the old. Here is a sampling.
I think there are some major assumptions being made with some of these quotes. The entire OT is not a "shadow"...nor is it all the OT equate to "the Law/ Sinai/ Mosaic Covenant". "The Law" is specific to parts of Exodus to Deuteronomy. Some OT prophecies by the prophets are still relevant to us today and Acts 3:18-21 speaks to that fact.
I agree that the entire OT is not a shadow. I mentioned that in my comments about Nick.
The point we are debating here, though, is whether the early Anabaptists as a whole (who had common theology and practice) saw a sharp distinction between the two dispensations. I think they did. JohnH thinks they did not.
I guess what makes me wince a little is language like: "the New realties supercede the old".Yes, the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic Covenant, but it almost sounds like its being inferred that God changed His plan at the dawn of the New Testament. Or, the OT writers were just stumbling about with no clarity for thousands of years until we get the NT to clear it all up. I tend to give the OT writers more credit than that. They knew clearly Gods plan and wrote about it. They were tremendous theologians and they knew precisely what they were writing and saying even if their audience refused to grasp it. They even quoted one another in the OT. Likely their understanding of Gods plan may even be better than ours today.
But, this is probably a different topic than what's being discussed as far as whether we should go to war. I just think using the argument that the OT writers were misunderstood is a flawed argument and probably won't be very convincing to a lot of Christians.
)