What interpretations would lead to someone receiving "the ban" or excommunication from your church?

[JohnH]

Something to consider is that Jesus' godhood is core to Anabaptism. Following Jesus is central to what we do.

Jesus is considered perfect, and to be God himself - he is the creator, who has always existed, and always will. We worship him because he is indeed God.

The reason Anabaptists will do "crazy" things like:
- give up their rights to defend themselves and their families
- accept terrible persecution
- live a "primitive" lifestyle, using a horse and cart instead of a more convenient car and truck
- live communally, instead of accumulating wealth for private, individual ends
- accept wearing uncomfortable, less fashionable clothes
- put up with trying to always forgive, even when someone keeps wronging us
- accept being ordained to leadership duties (often thankless) with no pay and no compensation
- accept strictures around marriage - like avoiding divorce, avoiding divorce and remarriage, only marrying other church members "in the Lord", and submitting our marriage decisions to the church instead of just marrying whoever we want
- allowing our children to make their own decision to be baptised, and giving up the comfort and assurance of baptising them as infants into church membership, and instead entrusting our young babies to the Lord to watch over their souls

... is because we feel Jesus is asking us to do these things, or we see doing these things as a means to an end to more fully follow Jesus. If Jesus were not the risen Christ - crucified, buried, yet living again and ascended - and if Jesus were not someone we believe is going to return, to fully again rule over the earth - we would not do these things. And indeed, the only reason we have the power and motivation to do these things is because we feel Jesus gives us supernatural power to accept being wronged over and over, to accept "joyfully accepting the spoilation of our goods", to be defrauded, to see our family members tortured or murdered in front of ours, and yet to be like Jesus was, meek as a "lamb going to the slaughter".

Without Christ as God, all is for naught. If Jesus were a mere man, we too would simply live like mere men.

[Soloist]

Wife: I absolutely agree with John H, but I do think that it would not hurt for OP to contact some of the communities that he’s interested in. They are not going to shun somebody that is not already a part of the church, and you can get to know the people for a while before ever becoming a member. Perhaps your view might change, and I don’t actually know their personal stance on it or how they would approach it, since I’ve never visited one of those communities. It’s my personal opinion that most people are not going to change on a view like that overnight, and that if someone is sincerely seeking the truth, God might show mercy on them while they are trying to figure things out. You could probably get some profit out of visiting one of those groups for a while, even if you never decide to join and you all aren’t in perfect agreement.

As for the other thing, I have no idea how those groups would react, but one of our ministers actually just did a sermon on Romans 14, so it seemed like his viewpoint at least was that if people wanted to practice Jewish customs, they had the right to, as long as they did not judge those that didn’t and did not place an unhealthy view of salvation on it.

[Neto]

I would differ with you here. Both people seeking to join, and biannually as part of the council process, people are asked, "Do you affirm the 1963 Mennonite confession of Faith and seek to live by its provisions?" It affirms BOTH the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. So no one could answer truthfully if they did not accept both of these provisions.

A person who denies either of these doctrines does not belong anywhere near membership in a Mennonite church.

I find no mention of the doctrine of the trinity in this confession of faith. Yes, it affirms the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it does not go beyond Scripture, in any attempt to explain how this can be true, at the same time as that the following is also true:

(Article 1. God and His Attributes)
.... This one and only God ....

That is trinitarian doctrine, by definition. It does not require anyone to affirm HOW it can be true, it merely requires someone to affirm that it IS true. It is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason.

""I find no mention of the doctrine of the trinity in this confession of faith. Yes, it affirms the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ""

It therefor affirms the Trinity. Were you thinking one had to affirm the entirety of the Athanasian Creed?

No, my point is that the term 'trinity' is in itself now part and parcel of the 'explanation' espoused by those old creeds. Hence all of these ice, water and vapor; egg shell, white, and yoke; on and on - extra-Biblical explanations and illustrations of how God can be One God, and yet be "three persons". My personal objection deals with this determination to put forth a doctrine that is not completely based on Scripture, but rather adds mere human imagination in with Biblical truth.

In a sense, the Nicene Creed started the trajectory of using 'human wisdom' to explain what God Himself chose to leave unexplained, to leave as the mystery of God. The first counsel was conducted to oppose heresies confronted by the church, and fostered new heresies which were then met with the same type of opposition, seeking to answer unanswerable questions with more philosophical human logic. In that sense, then, yes, the Athanasian Creed is also part of the meaning of the so-called 'doctrine of the trinity'. I'm not saying that the actual word 'trinity' is bad, but it has come to mean all of those things, and in that sense it has become corrupted, and so it could be misleading for me to say that I affirm the doctrine of the trinity. Rather than meet falsehood with simple Biblical truth they attempted to use human logic to nail down the exact description of God.

So no, I do not accept the statement that affirming that there is One God, and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Deity is the same as affirming the 'doctrine of the trinity'. My plea is that we answer falsehood with revealed Biblical truth, and allow the mystery that God permitted to remain; to leave unsaid that which God Himself left unsaid. When we attempt to answer with human logic we leave an opening for our logic to be answered by more human logic that introduces a new falsehood.

[Ernie]

you’d think He would’ve cleared that up if it wasn’t true.

My only point is that IMO, there are many things that are not "cleared up" in the Bible that I wish were cleared up. So I don't necessarily think that He cleared up things that were unclear. But like I said earlier, I have no problem believing that Jesus is God. I'm just taking issue with the assumption that God clears up statements in the Bible that are not true or that could be understood in different ways. All Jesus would have had to say is, "I am God," and that would have settled the debate for those who took His words as truth.

[Neto]

you’d think He would’ve cleared that up if it wasn’t true.

My only point is that IMO, there are many things that are not "cleared up" in the Bible that I wish were cleared up. So I don't necessarily think that He cleared up things that were unclear. But like I said earlier, I have no problem believing that Jesus is God. I'm just taking issue with the assumption that God clears up statements in the Bible that are not true or that could be understood in different ways. All Jesus would have had to say is, "I am God," and that would have settled the debate for those who took His words as truth.

I will try to be very careful how much I write here now, because I already wish I hadn't said so much in my last post here. (I rewrote it multiple times, took stuff out, then put other things in - this should tell me that I'm saying too much, but I don't always listen well.)

So in respect to Jesus saying "I am God", I'll just say that he said and did many things that were clearly taken to mean that. So if He did not accept that understanding, He could have easily said 'I am NOT God', but He didn't say that. If that were true, He could have gained a great deal more understanding and acceptance on a much wider scale by saying that. His statements that 'The Father & I are one' seem very clear to me that He meant exactly that He is God. Even claiming to be the son of God is a clear declaration of deity, because 'like begats like', and that is how it was understood. (I also think that Philippians chapter two is about as clear as can be, not to mention John chapter 1 again.)

[joshuabgood]

I think one could affirm a confession, say the 1963, as part of the historical Christian faith, and affirm sincere people making reasonable discernment, came up with it, without personally having wrote it the exactly same way if they were writing it...after all it really is Benders confession.

[JohnH]

I think one could affirm a confession, say the 1963, as part of the historical Christian faith, and affirm sincere people making reasonable discernment, came up with it, without personally having wrote it the exactly same way if they were writing it...after all it really is Benders confession.

Anabaptists wouldn't really be that hopped up about details of the trinity. They would be more concerned with whether or not Jesus is viewed as both God, king, and also human. (Interestingly, pagan peoples often viewed a king, pharoah, etc. as both a god and as a human.) Whilst I think it's best to hold to orthodox trinitarianism, I don't consider it central to our faith at all - I do consider Jesus' godship, lordship, and kingship to be very central.

No, my point is that the term 'trinity' is in itself now part and parcel of the 'explanation' espoused by those old creeds. Hence all of these ice, water and vapor; egg shell, white, and yoke; on and on

I've always cringed when I've heard these analogies since, technically, they would actually be considered christological errors: the ice/water/vapor analogy is just modalism (sebelianism), sometimes also called patripassianism; likewise the "egg" analogy is partialism.

I prefer there to be a certain "mystery" about God and Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit.

[Soloist]

you’d think He would’ve cleared that up if it wasn’t true.

My only point is that IMO, there are many things that are not "cleared up" in the Bible that I wish were cleared up. So I don't necessarily think that He cleared up things that were unclear. But like I said earlier, I have no problem believing that Jesus is God. I'm just taking issue with the assumption that God clears up statements in the Bible that are not true or that could be understood in different ways. All Jesus would have had to say is, "I am God," and that would have settled the debate for those who took His words as truth.

I will try to be very careful how much I write here now, because I already wish I hadn't said so much in my last post here. (I rewrote it multiple times, took stuff out, then put other things in - this should tell me that I'm saying too much, but I don't always listen well.)

So in respect to Jesus saying "I am God", I'll just say that he said and did many things that were clearly taken to mean that. So if He did not accept that understanding, He could have easily said 'I am NOT God', but He didn't say that. If that were true, He could have gained a great deal more understanding and acceptance on a much wider scale by saying that. His statements that 'The Father & I are one' seem very clear to me that He meant exactly that He is God. Even claiming to be the son of God is a clear declaration of deity, because 'like begats like', and that is how it was understood. (I also think that Philippians chapter two is about as clear as can be, not to mention John chapter 1 again.)

The I and the Father are one statement could also be a parallel statement like marriage not that Jesus and God are in a marriage but rather one accord.
We don’t literally think that a husband and wife are one flesh even though we believe it so.

There are other statements such as

Jhn 20:17  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The single point I would make is dying on the hill of Trinity is the wrong hill.
It is a great mystery and too many have killed for that banner or the opposite banner.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I think one could affirm a confession, say the 1963, as part of the historical Christian faith, and affirm sincere people making reasonable discernment, came up with it, without personally having wrote it the exactly same way if they were writing it...after all it really is Benders confession.

Anabaptists wouldn't really be that hopped up about details of the trinity. They would be more concerned with whether or not Jesus is viewed as both God, king, and also human. (Interestingly, pagan peoples often viewed a king, pharoah, etc. as both a god and as a human.) Whilst I think it's best to hold to orthodox trinitarianism, I don't consider it central to our faith at all - I do consider Jesus' godship, lordship, and kingship to be very central.

No, my point is that the term 'trinity' is in itself now part and parcel of the 'explanation' espoused by those old creeds. Hence all of these ice, water and vapor; egg shell, white, and yoke; on and on

I've always cringed when I've heard these analogies since, technically, they would actually be considered christological errors: the ice/water/vapor analogy is just modalism (sebelianism), sometimes also called patripassianism; likewise the "egg" analogy is partialism.

I prefer there to be a certain "mystery" about God and Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit.

Which is why I have consistently said that the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation rather than a doctrine of reason. We believe this because the Bible affirms each of these points as true, not because they make sense. They are, in fact, an incomprehensible. Some reformed try to rephrase the teaching of the Bible so that it comports with logic. I generally reject this.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I've always cringed when I've heard these analogies since, technically, they would actually be considered christological errors: the ice/water/vapor analogy is just modalism (sebelianism), sometimes also called patripassianism; likewise the "egg" analogy is partialism.

I prefer there to be a certain "mystery" about God and Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit.

I cringe when I hear them as well, and all of them are indeed modalism. Trying to fit the Trinity into physical reality or develop a comprehensible model itself is the first step into error.