How could transitional Anabaptists stop being that way?

[Sudsy]

I would not put it the way you did as I believe Pentecostals and others make a difference in killing over a personal issue compared to participating in wars to stop evil from advancing. The former, they would say is breaking the 'thou shalt not kill' whereas the latter is permitted in more as a personal conviction issue regarding participating in stopping evil in wars. Our most recent MB pastor came from a Pentecostal background, yet He was a pacifist as that is not a Pentecostal church requirement and is considered more a personal conviction.

And I believe that justifying killing others goes against the teachings of Jesus to me.

If you look into the history of Pentecostals, up until sometime after the WWII, Pentecostals were pacifist in teaching. Here is a summary statement of the Assemblies of God regarding participating and killing other humans back in 1917 - https://pcpj.org/pentecostal-pacifism/

That's nice, but it's not 1917. Can you point me to a Pentecostal church today that embraces and teaches nonresistance? The closest thing I have ever found is Homestead Heritage, which is a Oneness type of group.

From here - https://anabaptistworld.org/pacifism-in-church-history/

The Church of God in Christ — the largest African-American denomination, with more than 6 million members — has been officially pacifist since it began.

I think this is a good history of what happened in Pentecostalism with regard to pacifism -
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 7000100031

But like many things in Pentecostalism certain practises have changed and certainly have within my lifetime. By 1967 the change was from “absolute pacifism to authority of the individual conscience”.

I think Jesus and the Bible are the same yesterday, today, and forever. If killing people was wrong in 1917, it still is today. In 1967, killing people in war did not suddenly become something Jesus thinks is OK. I don't think Jesus was pleased at all to see so many American Christians go to Vietnam and kill people on behalf of a "war" that they ended up losing anyway.

If anything, what you have said proves me point about the dangers of transitionalism: eventually, one will lose everything valuable, eventually even belief in the Bible and Jesus himself.

Jesus is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever', however beliefs about Him are not and keep on changing. I don't agree that all changes are 'downhill'. For instance, a retake on the belief in endless torment for the unsaved is, imo, a transition that is more correct with the scriptures. There are also other transitions, that I agree with, that some need to go from a 'works salvation' to a 'grace salvation'. What some see as dangers, others see as needful in better understandings of God and His ways. Bottom line, for me, is that we all currently know in part. None of us have it all figured out and there will be some big surprises for all of us who think we can figure it all out.