I will try again. Understand, I am not arguing for Catholicism or against folks choosing to be Anabaptist. That might be what ypu conclude from my statement but it’s not really where I am going.
The point is, and I think it is clear, this historical truth (as said by Protestants and Anabaptists, for I do not consider Anabaptists Protestants) that getting people to read the Bible is the magic answer is indeed a falsehood.
Now, do not read into that. I am not rejecting bible reading. Rather the point is, then and now, all these folks read the same bible, and up all over the place. Yes, lots of good and much commonality comes from it. BUT it is clear not everyone ends up in the same place, with the same practices. How many Protestants hold to non conformity and non resistance like the Anabaptists do? So how come? Is somebody unable to read correctly?
I used EPMC simply because I am MOST familiar with that setting. I do not disagree they are all the way on one side of that spectrum.
Nonetheless I hold that one is more likely. To find a strong and deep consensus close to the truth by building on LOTS of strong thinking than myriad one offs.
And by the way, I am fine with disagreeing but trotting out the “what about the Orthodox, etc.” is such a foolish point. The differences in all the groups listing are in fact extremely small differences. Significant enough to cause different denominations but it terms of actual differences they are NOTHING like the range and wide variances in the Protestant world. Disagree with Aquinas, Therese of Lisieux, or other Doctors of the Church because you do not accept assumptions and starting points, but I will take their logical reasoning over “some guy’S” any day.
Again, Mennonites (and any prod group) are no less relying on “authority” versus everyone read for themselves than say the RCC. I did not see them taking turns at giving the message. LOL
Arminianism and Anabaptism?
-
ohio jones
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2024 6:03 pm
- Affiliation: Rosedale Network
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Getting people to read the Bible is not the magic answer (is someone here saying it is? what is the question anyway?). The demons read, and tremble. Reading must be accompanied by repentance, regeneration, and discipleship in order to have real value.
As Chesterton said, the difficult things are often left untried.Now, do not read into that. I am not rejecting bible reading. Rather the point is, then and now, all these folks read the same bible, and up all over the place. Yes, lots of good and much commonality comes from it. BUT it is clear not everyone ends up in the same place, with the same practices. How many Protestants hold to non conformity and non resistance like the Anabaptists do? So how come? Is somebody unable to read correctly?
2 x
-
JohnL
- Posts: 2790
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2024 1:40 pm
- Location: The Bionic Hillbilly
- Affiliation: Free Will Baptist
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Remember that literacy wasn’t widespread until the Reformation and the times that followed too. The men who started the Reformation were literate and studied the Bible because they had access to one.
These days getting people to read at all (instead of just scanning social media and headlines) is pretty tough.
These days getting people to read at all (instead of just scanning social media and headlines) is pretty tough.
0 x
Free Will Baptist <-> Anabaptist
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Folks have the horse and carriage backwards. Literacy increased due to the Reformation. It was an effect, not a cause.
The Reformation did not spread through increased reading of the Bible by the laity. It is a subtle but important deference. The commonly presented “facts” encourage less than accurate understanding of the various chains of events.
A similar false narrative is the burning of Anabaptists at the stake by Catholics. Absolutely happened, but far more Anabaptists were killed by Protestant leaders than Catholic.
The Reformation’s successful growth is due more to a political movement, cultural changes related to technology (that is where the printing press comes in) and economics. That is often missed in Anabaptist circles because I do agree that thread of the Reofrmation Era story WAS driven by religious belief. In contrast both Luther and the English reformation movements were overwhelmingly about politics.
Had Luther did what he did 200 years earlier or later he would be at best a footnote in history.
Why is that important? Because it helps explain the balkanization of Protestantism.
The Reformation did not spread through increased reading of the Bible by the laity. It is a subtle but important deference. The commonly presented “facts” encourage less than accurate understanding of the various chains of events.
A similar false narrative is the burning of Anabaptists at the stake by Catholics. Absolutely happened, but far more Anabaptists were killed by Protestant leaders than Catholic.
The Reformation’s successful growth is due more to a political movement, cultural changes related to technology (that is where the printing press comes in) and economics. That is often missed in Anabaptist circles because I do agree that thread of the Reofrmation Era story WAS driven by religious belief. In contrast both Luther and the English reformation movements were overwhelmingly about politics.
Had Luther did what he did 200 years earlier or later he would be at best a footnote in history.
Why is that important? Because it helps explain the balkanization of Protestantism.
0 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
To JayP's point, I agree that there is a misconception about literacy as it relates to the setting in which the 'reformation' began and expanded. As I recall, previous references have been made in this thread pointing to the first PRINTINGS of the Scripture text as a major factor in the Reformation. In respect to the 'common people', perhaps; as it must have made copies of the Scripture much more available, at much less cost. But the people involved in the beginnings of that movement - most of the the ones we have names for - THEY were predominantly priests, or somehow otherwise connected to the Catholic church, some as the illegitimate sons of priests, or otherwise dependents of the Catholic church.
All of the very early 'autographs' were hand copied, and most priests would have had access to a copy of the Latin Vulgate. I will venture to guess that in addition to the rampant corruption and immorality in the Catholic church in that era, as well as outside political and cultural factors (and, of course, the work of the Holy Spirit) led some priests and other educated men to begin studying the Scripture for themselves. It snow-balled partially, at least, due to the persecutions that were carried out in the early phases. Menno Simons, for instance, was awaken to read the Scriptures after hearing of executions of so-called heretics. Before that, he testifies, he was loathe to read the Scriptures himself, for fear of being 'lead astray'.
Literacy does not always "increase knowledge'. It makes a wider selection of knowledge available, but in my experience, the members of oral societies hold a much greater knowledge in their minds than they are given credit for. (The Banawa would sometimes test me, by asking What is the name of that bird, or tree, etc. I most often couldn't answer, although they had 'taught it to me' previously. I too often answered "The paper knows; I only sort of know." As a literate person I had it written down, but I did not KNOW it. Literacy tends to teach us that the thing we really need to know is in what book we will find the information we need. The expansion of knowledge has exaggerated this, with the result that we do not even KNOW many of the types of things that the pre-literate holds in his mind, with no need to look it up in a book.)
All of the very early 'autographs' were hand copied, and most priests would have had access to a copy of the Latin Vulgate. I will venture to guess that in addition to the rampant corruption and immorality in the Catholic church in that era, as well as outside political and cultural factors (and, of course, the work of the Holy Spirit) led some priests and other educated men to begin studying the Scripture for themselves. It snow-balled partially, at least, due to the persecutions that were carried out in the early phases. Menno Simons, for instance, was awaken to read the Scriptures after hearing of executions of so-called heretics. Before that, he testifies, he was loathe to read the Scriptures himself, for fear of being 'lead astray'.
Literacy does not always "increase knowledge'. It makes a wider selection of knowledge available, but in my experience, the members of oral societies hold a much greater knowledge in their minds than they are given credit for. (The Banawa would sometimes test me, by asking What is the name of that bird, or tree, etc. I most often couldn't answer, although they had 'taught it to me' previously. I too often answered "The paper knows; I only sort of know." As a literate person I had it written down, but I did not KNOW it. Literacy tends to teach us that the thing we really need to know is in what book we will find the information we need. The expansion of knowledge has exaggerated this, with the result that we do not even KNOW many of the types of things that the pre-literate holds in his mind, with no need to look it up in a book.)
1 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Can you explain in the balkanization of Roman Catholicism into Eastern Orthodoxy, Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodoxy? It seems unfair to complain about Protestant “balkanization” without first sweeping one’s own house.JayP wrote: ↑Thu May 22, 2025 7:39 am Folks have the horse and carriage backwards. Literacy increased due to the Reformation. It was an effect, not a cause.
The Reformation did not spread through increased reading of the Bible by the laity. It is a subtle but important deference. The commonly presented “facts” encourage less than accurate understanding of the various chains of events.
A similar false narrative is the burning of Anabaptists at the stake by Catholics. Absolutely happened, but far more Anabaptists were killed by Protestant leaders than Catholic.
The Reformation’s successful growth is due more to a political movement, cultural changes related to technology (that is where the printing press comes in) and economics. That is often missed in Anabaptist circles because I do agree that thread of the Reofrmation Era story WAS driven by religious belief. In contrast both Luther and the English reformation movements were overwhelmingly about politics.
Had Luther did what he did 200 years earlier or later he would be at best a footnote in history.
Why is that important? Because it helps explain the balkanization of Protestantism.
0 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
John, the way you phrase that demonstrates your bias and hostility. I do not feel that way about a Protestants.
My using a well regarded, if not traditionally applied to religion, term like balkanization has no moral emphasis attached.
The existence of Roman, Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox churches is a far different phenomena than the Protestant reformation.
The Catholic/Orthodox/Other situation has far less “splits”, each branch having long histories and significant population.
You cannot deny that The Reformation has led to a large number of different groups. My point being individual interpretation of the Bible leads not to a magic, now we all know what it means so we are in the same place, but rather a zillion interpretations.
There are fewer total splits on the RCC/orthodox side than just the baptists alone.
Take the Roman and Orthodox split. It is real, but despite being centuries old it theologically still involves a few, specific issues.
We can all agree on what those issues are. In theory, as opposed to practice where all sorts of human issues intrude, they could possibly be resolved.
And the splits are quite different. No Roman priest is questioning that an Orthodx bishop is licit. I have children who received some of the sacraments by an Orthodox priest, who attend RCC Mass. there is no questioning the legitimacy my an RCC priest. But someone baptized in a Lutheran church as a child is not considered baptized by groups who believe in adult baptism. Heck, Lutherans do not technically require baptism.
Do not confuse folks from drawing away from the main point which someone else confirmed. My point simply was the Reformation was not a product of literacy and common folk now reading their bible. Rather the relationship is Reformation was a major cause of the effect of spreading literacy and bible reading by laity.
My using a well regarded, if not traditionally applied to religion, term like balkanization has no moral emphasis attached.
The existence of Roman, Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox churches is a far different phenomena than the Protestant reformation.
The Catholic/Orthodox/Other situation has far less “splits”, each branch having long histories and significant population.
You cannot deny that The Reformation has led to a large number of different groups. My point being individual interpretation of the Bible leads not to a magic, now we all know what it means so we are in the same place, but rather a zillion interpretations.
There are fewer total splits on the RCC/orthodox side than just the baptists alone.
Take the Roman and Orthodox split. It is real, but despite being centuries old it theologically still involves a few, specific issues.
We can all agree on what those issues are. In theory, as opposed to practice where all sorts of human issues intrude, they could possibly be resolved.
And the splits are quite different. No Roman priest is questioning that an Orthodx bishop is licit. I have children who received some of the sacraments by an Orthodox priest, who attend RCC Mass. there is no questioning the legitimacy my an RCC priest. But someone baptized in a Lutheran church as a child is not considered baptized by groups who believe in adult baptism. Heck, Lutherans do not technically require baptism.
Do not confuse folks from drawing away from the main point which someone else confirmed. My point simply was the Reformation was not a product of literacy and common folk now reading their bible. Rather the relationship is Reformation was a major cause of the effect of spreading literacy and bible reading by laity.
0 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
JayP,
That’s because giving infants a bath or dripping water on their forehead to convey any spiritual benefit is complete nonsense and deviates very far from what is clearly taught in the scriptures.
God does not sit and watch us and decide babies can go to heaven, but only if a priest in the “right” denomination drips water on its head first.
That’s because giving infants a bath or dripping water on their forehead to convey any spiritual benefit is complete nonsense and deviates very far from what is clearly taught in the scriptures.
God does not sit and watch us and decide babies can go to heaven, but only if a priest in the “right” denomination drips water on its head first.
0 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Would you supply a quotation or proof that the RCC teaches unbaptized infants go to hell?
The last time I attended a Catholic mass for an unbaptized child, which was later buried in consecrated ground of a Catholic cemetery, the phrase used was “It is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants that die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ who said Let the children come into me”.
Someone asked about the phrasing and one looked it up. It comes more or less straight from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (the big book!).
God is not a lawyer trapped by His own laws.
The last time I attended a Catholic mass for an unbaptized child, which was later buried in consecrated ground of a Catholic cemetery, the phrase used was “It is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants that die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ who said Let the children come into me”.
Someone asked about the phrasing and one looked it up. It comes more or less straight from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (the big book!).
God is not a lawyer trapped by His own laws.
0 x
Re: Arminianism and Anabaptism?
Then why bother baptizing infants at all?JayP wrote: ↑Wed May 28, 2025 9:45 am Would you supply a quotation or proof that the RCC teaches unbaptized infants go to hell?
The last time I attended a Catholic mass for an unbaptized child, which was later buried in consecrated ground of a Catholic cemetery, the phrase used was “It is reasonable to hope that God provides a way of salvation for infants that die without being baptized. It is a hope rooted in Christ who said Let the children come into me”.
Someone asked about the phrasing and one looked it up. It comes more or less straight from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (the big book!).
God is not a lawyer trapped by His own laws.
0 x