Incompatible beliefs

[Ernie]

An Amish friend of mine said he thinks Calvinism is actually a graver error and worse for a plain person to fall into than Catholicism.

That doesn't surprise me. There are probably Amish that think the opposite.

I think Calvinism (TULIP), Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, and even some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity have grave errors that are similar in the sort of damage that they can do to a person's understanding of reality.

[JohnH]

Reformed doctrine (including some of its descendants, such as Baptists) are simply incompatible with Anabaptist beliefs. We still have some things in common, but overall, as an Amishman once told me, Anabaptism has more in common with Catholicism and better chance of someday funding unity with it than it ever will with Reformed doctrine.

It should be noted that the very first persecutors of Anabaptists were Reformed, not Catholic.

[MattY]

Reformed doctrine (including some of its descendants, such as Baptists) are simply incompatible with Anabaptist beliefs. We still have some things in common, but overall, as an Amishman once told me, Anabaptism has more in common with Catholicism and better chance of someday funding unity with it than it ever will with Reformed doctrine.

It should be noted that the very first persecutors of Anabaptists were Reformed, not Catholic.

But Catholicism is completely incompatible with Anabaptism, and the persecution Anabaptists experienced at the hand of Catholics was extremely intense, even more so than from Protestants.

There's a very simple reason the first persecutors of Anabaptism were Reformed. It's that Anabaptism began in a Reformed-controlled region and spread there first. It's actually the opposite of what you say: the first Anabaptists came out of Zwinglianism and were not opposed to his other teachings, but differed on the Anabaptist distinctives: they wanted a committed church of New Testament believers, with believers' baptism, and not waiting on the state to approve their changes. They were, in fact, closer to Zwingli in both belief and physical location than to Catholicism, and that is why the original persecution came from him.

[JohnH]

Reformed doctrine (including some of its descendants, such as Baptists) are simply incompatible with Anabaptist beliefs. We still have some things in common, but overall, as an Amishman once told me, Anabaptism has more in common with Catholicism and better chance of someday funding unity with it than it ever will with Reformed doctrine.

It should be noted that the very first persecutors of Anabaptists were Reformed, not Catholic.

But Catholicism is completely incompatible with Anabaptism, and the persecution Anabaptists experienced at the hand of Catholics was extremely intense, even more so than from Protestants.

There's a very simple reason the first persecutors of Anabaptism were Reformed. It's that Anabaptism began in a Reformed-controlled region and spread there first. It's actually the opposite of what you say: the first Anabaptists came out of Zwinglianism and were not opposed to his other teachings, but differed on the Anabaptist distinctives: they wanted a committed church of New Testament believers, with believers' baptism, and not waiting on the state to approve their changes. They were, in fact, closer to Zwingli in both belief and physical location than to Catholicism, and that is why the original persecution came from him.

I argue that Anabaptists are anti-Augustinian, whereas Reformed thinking is turbo-Augustinian and that was ultimately why Anabaptists represented a radical reformation.

[JayP]

A few posts ago Marty said Catholicsm and Anabaptism were terribly not compatible.

I do not see that reasoning at all.

I remember both an Amish minister and an Conservative Mennonite minister saying that in their experience the most successful converts came from Catholicism. I hardly am arguing there are not differences but frankly I can see much more connection points for Anabaptism with Catholicsm than Protestantism.

Thoughts?

[Neto]

Reformed doctrine (including some of its descendants, such as Baptists) are simply incompatible with Anabaptist beliefs. We still have some things in common, but overall, as an Amishman once told me, Anabaptism has more in common with Catholicism and better chance of someday funding unity with it than it ever will with Reformed doctrine.

It should be noted that the very first persecutors of Anabaptists were Reformed, not Catholic.

I cannot point to documented proof, but my guess is that while this is true of those in the Swiss area, it was probably the Spanish Catholics who were the first and primary persecutors in the Low Countries. It basically came down to who was in control in each area. This came about later, but the Dutch Calvinists were actually pretty favorable toward 'anabaptists' in the Dutch areas. (At one point the "Mennists" took up collections to meet some serious need of the Dutch Calvinists, which won their respect, and so they wrote letters of appeal to the Swiss Calvinists, to be more kind to the Swiss anabaptists, an appeal that fell on deaf ears.)

[I also wouldn't make strong generalizations about Baptists, as I've not found Free-Will Baptists to be like that, nor some Brazilian Baptist groups. The majority of Baptists, perhaps, or even probably, it is as you say.]

[cmbl]

An Amish friend of mine said he thinks Calvinism is actually a graver error and worse for a plain person to fall into than Catholicism.

That doesn't surprise me. There are probably Amish that think the opposite.

I think Calvinism (TULIP), Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, and even some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity have grave errors that are similar in the sort of damage that they can do to a person's understanding of reality.

Can you elaborate on the beliefs held by some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity?

[Neto]

A few posts ago Marty said Catholicsm and Anabaptism were terribly not compatible.

I do not see that reasoning at all.

I remember both an Amish minister and an Conservative Mennonite minister saying that in their experience the most successful converts came from Catholicism. I hardly am arguing there are not differences but frankly I can see much more connection points for Anabaptism with Catholicsm than Protestantism.

Thoughts?

As a Mennonite from a different tradition, but one with over 40 years of 'immersion' in the Swiss Brethren setting, I will say that in that context, I do agree. I see various similarities between the Amish mindset and what I understand of Catholicism. (I wish I could make a list here, but it's late now, and my mind is ready for sleep. ) There are also vast differences, like large cathedrals vs meetings in the home or shop, and much of Protestantism is more so on the Catholic side in that area. It would be interesting to list the different characteristics of the different groups, to show the 'common ground' within each combination.

One main similarity (between Amish & Catholics - again, as I understand the latter group) is the sacramental view of baptism. As far as the Amish are concerned, what I mean there is that the important thing for them is making a 'right confession' in the doctrinal sense. Many (most? Certainly my own faith tradition, Mennonite Brethren) Mennonite groups focus on the personal declaration - that they recognize Jesus as their own Savior and Master or 'Boss'. So a person who made that 'right confession' without a personal faith experience, they would be asked to be 'baptized upon their faith'. I may not see this the same was as others on this forum, because the MBs are pietistic in addition to their emphasis on 'brotherhood'. (I do not, however, mean 'pietistic' in the sense as I see it defined by AI on-line, such as

"Pietistic" describes something related to or characterized by Pietism, a 17th-century Christian movement emphasizing personal religious experience and devotion over formal doctrine. It can also refer to an exaggerated or affected display of religious devotion. Synonyms include sanctimonious, self-righteous, and holier-than-thou.

I use the term in the sense of an emphasis on a personal spiritual experience or relationship with God, but one that is still in line with Biblical doctrine and mutual submission to the 'brotherhood'. If there is a better term for this, I'd like to hear it, as using this term has caused some confusion in the past as to what I mean.

[Ernie]

An Amish friend of mine said he thinks Calvinism is actually a graver error and worse for a plain person to fall into than Catholicism.

That doesn't surprise me. There are probably Amish that think the opposite.

I think Calvinism (TULIP), Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, and even some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity have grave errors that are similar in the sort of damage that they can do to a person's understanding of reality.

Can you elaborate on the beliefs held by some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity?

These are the first ones that come to mind...

I think that Anabaptists who lean in the direction of dispensationalism, end up supporting Israel more than they should. They also believe that certain things need to happen yet before Jesus can return which makes them think and live differently than what they would if they really believed that Jesus could come at any moment, without checking all the boxes on their checklist. These folks also waste a lot of time on these sorts of things that would be better spent on pure religion as defined by James.

There are Anabaptists who are dabbling in or embracing some parts of Reformed theology and others are heavily influenced by Fundamentalism. I think both are very problematic.

There are large swaths of Anabaptists whose soteriology leaves many in the church unsure about their relationship and standing with God, which paralyzes people and keeps them from flourishing spiritually and feeling like they have something they can offer the world.

Decades ago, people like John D Martin were saying that if the Holy Spirit was taken out of Anabaptists churches, very little in the churches would change. I think this is true and if anything the problem has only gotten worse the last decades.

There are Anabaptists who have really diluted the concept of a pure church, and they allow all sorts of things in the church that I don't think Anabaptists in the 16th century would have generally permitted.

Many Anabaptists ordain people who do not meet the character qualifications for elders and deacons. They make excuse for this by saying that "we got to work with what we have" or "we all have our weaknesses and shortcomings". This does two things. It lowers the bar and makes a lower bar acceptable. And it creates for a lot of the dysfunction in many churches.

Stephen Russell and Roger Hertzler believe that Non-resistance, Non-conformity, and Non-accumulation were solid doctrines in both the early church and in the early Anabaptist days. Non-accumulation is hardly spoken about in most Anabaptist churches in the 21st century.

The are Anabaptists and Kingdom Christians who are sectarian and do not embrace other Christians/churches who are living faithfully and following the teachings of the NT. Some of these are parasitic and sheep stealers.

Some Anabaptists don't believe that we are responsible to take the Gospel to those who have not heard nor preach the Gospel to the lost. They are content with preaching to the choir and building up paradises here on earth. Basically all energy goes into the local church and family infrastructures. It is basically based on an OT belief that all the world will come to us, rather than us needing to go into all the world.

[Neto]

That doesn't surprise me. There are probably Amish that think the opposite.

I think Calvinism (TULIP), Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Evangelicalism, and even some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity have grave errors that are similar in the sort of damage that they can do to a person's understanding of reality.

Can you elaborate on the beliefs held by some wings of Anabaptism and Kingdom Christianity?

These are the first ones that come to mind...

A.
I think that Anabaptists who lean in the direction of dispensationalism, end up supporting Israel more than they should. They also believe that certain things need to happen yet before Jesus can return which makes them think and live differently than what they would if they really believed that Jesus could come at any moment, without checking all the boxes on their checklist. These folks also waste a lot of time on these sorts of things that would be better spent on pure religion as defined by James.

B.
There are Anabaptists who are dabbling in or embracing some parts of Reformed theology and others are heavily influenced by Fundamentalism. I think both are very problematic.

C.
There are large swaths of Anabaptists whose soteriology leaves many in the church unsure about their relationship and standing with God, which paralyzes people and keeps them from flourishing spiritually and feeling like they have something they can offer the world.

D.
Decades ago, people like John D Martin were saying that if the Holy Spirit was taken out of Anabaptists churches, very little in the churches would change. I think this is true and if anything the problem has only gotten worse the last decades.

E.
There are Anabaptists who have really diluted the concept of a pure church, and they allow all sorts of things in the church that I don't think Anabaptists in the 16th century would have generally permitted.

F.
Many Anabaptists ordain people who do not meet the character qualifications for elders and deacons. They make excuse for this by saying that "we got to work with what we have" or "we all have our weaknesses and shortcomings". This does two things. It lowers the bar and makes a lower bar acceptable. And it creates for a lot of the dysfunction in many churches.

G.
Stephen Russell and Roger Hertzler believe that Non-resistance, Non-conformity, and Non-accumulation were solid doctrines in both the early church and in the early Anabaptist days. Non-accumulation is hardly spoken about in most Anabaptist churches in the 21st century.

H.
The are Anabaptists and Kingdom Christians who are sectarian and do not embrace other Christians/churches who are living faithfully and following the teachings of the NT. Some of these are parasitic and sheep stealers.

I.
Some Anabaptists don't believe that we are responsible to take the Gospel to those who have not heard nor preach the Gospel to the lost. They are content with preaching to the choir and building up paradises here on earth. Basically all energy goes into the local church and family infrastructures. It is basically based on an OT belief that all the world will come to us, rather than us needing to go into all the world.

[NOTE: I added alphabetic designations in order to refer to specific paragraphs.]
re: A.
The opposite people (Imminent Return of Christ) sometimes say that those who believe there are unfulfilled prophecies in the Scripture that Jesus said would happen first, that those people will 'live like the devil' since they think they can repent at the last moment. That's a lot of smoke and mirrors (on both sides, if there are actually people who think that way). Even if the return of Christ is not imminent, our death is even more imminent. We literally do not know when we will go through that doorway called death.

re: B:
I see this mostly in the tendency to choose one particular Doctrine of the Atonement, and reject the rest. Perhaps more seriously yet, all of these 'theories' of the Atonement concentrate on and argue about the mechanics of it, leaving the questions of Who did it and Why untouched. (God did it through Jesus His Chosen One, and He did it because He wants to be reconciled to His creation.

re: C.
I think that the fear of being proud causes some of this. I prefer to say that "I know that Jesus is both Capable and Willing to save me." HE is the one on whom the focus should be fixed. Then any pride involved is in our Savior.

re: D.
In the early months and years of the Mennonite Brethren church there was a great controversy between the "Joyful ones" and the "Serious-Minded ones". They got along together until some on both sides started to think (and say) that 'If you do not experience the Christian life like my group, then you have spiritual problems." Eventually the Serious-Minded approach won out, but I wish there had been more of a compromise, with mutual respect. Not everyone experiences the same emotions.

re: E.
I also have a great concern for this situation. Detractors sometimes say that it is not possible to attain perfection (TRUE), so we shouldn't lay a guilt trip on one another. But the Scripture tells us to "Incite one another to good works".

re: I.
I am also greatly concerned about this, and do not know how anyone can in good conscience justify such a point of view.