Mainline/Mainstream Anabaptists

[barnhart]

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

That is more or less how we got the Apostle's creed and the Nicean creed.

[Szdfan]

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

That is more or less how we got the Apostle's creed and the Nicean creed.

That makes a lot of sense. A COF is not just a theological or doctrinal document, it is also a political one shaped by the issues and controversies that the church was facing at the time. It’s an attempt to create clarity.

[ohio jones]

The pattern seems to be to include things in the statement of faith that are soon to be abandoned, perhaps so the statement can be pointed to as "proof" that they still believe it. For example, the 1963 Confession addresses the covering, which the MC began to drop within the next decade or so.

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

Yes. That's why Schleitheim is not a complete statement in comparison to Dordrecht or the 20th century confessions. It was not intended to address subjects on which there was agreement among the participants or between them and the Reformers.

[ohio jones]

The pattern seems to be to include things in the statement of faith that are soon to be abandoned, perhaps so the statement can be pointed to as "proof" that they still believe it. For example, the 1963 Confession addresses the covering, which the MC began to drop within the next decade or so.

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

Okaaaaaay; I guess that’s a different perspective than the one I’m used to.

So are you saying they will change their confessions every 20-30 years? Why do they do that? Is it to clarify outdated language? To keep up with trends? Go along with the leadership agendas?

If you do the basic research suggested in the other thread, you will see how often the confessions have been changed.

Which other thread?

viewtopic.php?p=273051#p273051

[JimFoxvog]

My own personal opinion is that a 21st Century Jesus would welcome both divorced people and gay people into his church.

I agree.

He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

[JimFoxvog]

Then they should abandon the 1995 COF and say they no longer affirm it.

I suspect a majority of us still do affirm it.

[JohnH]

Then they should abandon the 1995 COF and say they no longer affirm it.

I suspect a majority of us still do affirm it.

But not at the national conference level, where over 50% voted that they had somehow sinned by upholding the 1995 COF.

[JohnL]

You tend to officially confess things there might be some question about.

That is more or less how we got the Apostle's creed and the Nicean creed.

Okay, I got it now. Just needed some context. Thanks!

If you do the basic research suggested in the other thread, you will see how often the confessions have been changed.

Which other thread?

viewtopic.php?p=273051#p273051

That’s not helpful.

[Ernie]

My own personal opinion is that a 21st Century Jesus would welcome both divorced people and gay people into his church.

I agree.
He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

[JohnH]

My own personal opinion is that a 21st Century Jesus would welcome both divorced people and gay people into his church.

I agree.
He would probably have similar words to say to the person as he said to the woman caught in adultery.
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

This is the conclusion that most Mainliners/Mainstreamers have been coming to the last while.

Mainstream Anabaptists wouldn’t however accept someone living in a homosexual lifestyle / relationship. The mainline / progressive would.