This is awkward, since even Anabaptists are not Anabaptists all the time....

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Several at least (by label Anabaptist) who have posted in various sections in the last year,
are contrary to Anabaptist.
Contrary to Scripture.
Contrary to Jesus.

Most threads in the forum ('all sections') would not be considered suitable topics for discussion even, let alone for debate or public viewing.

Most posters, when confronted with the truth, back down. Evade the thread. Ignore the truth.

Others fight against it in vainity, claiming some rule is broken, silence the truth ! ! !
Like their feelings are hurt..... as if that is more important than saving their soul ?


Who cares for them ?

Jesus does. And all of Jesus obedient disciples , God Willing. (God says not to care for some of them - He has given them over)....... (still sorrowful for the loss, but nothing can be done when God gives up on someone perverse, someone continually opposed to Him)

 

[SteveIndy]

Several at least (by label Anabaptist) who have posted in various sections in the last year,
are contrary to Anabaptist.
Contrary to Scripture.
Contrary to Jesus.

Most threads in the forum ('all sections') would not be considered suitable topics for discussion even, let alone for debate or public viewing.

Most posters, when confronted with the truth, back down. Evade the thread. Ignore the truth.

Others fight against it in vainity, claiming some rule is broken, silence the truth ! ! !
Like their feelings are hurt..... as if that is more important than saving their soul ?


Who cares for them ?

Jesus does. And all of Jesus obedient disciples , God Willing. (God says not to care for some of them - He has given them over)....... (still sorrowful for the loss, but nothing can be done when God gives up on someone perverse, someone continually opposed to Him)

I noticed that you have not gotten any response to your thread yet. It may be because it is a little confusing.

1. You mention that several (Anabaptist) have posted responses that are contrary to Anabaptist positions but give no examples of such responses.

2. You mention that most threads would not be suitable for (Anabaptist) discussion, but here again, do not point out which type or kind you are referring to, or why they would not be suitable.

3. You say, "Most posters, when confronted with the truth, back down."

a. I have seen very little backing down on either side when truth is set forth. Mostly I see an argumentive spirit that is not backed-up by valid arguments or Scripture.

b. When you say "Most posters" do you mean Anabaptist or others?

4. You say "Others fight against it in vanity…" Who are the others? And, if it is in "vanity" then it is wrong, but if it is for the sake of truth then let truth prevail. I will admit that I too enter into debates on this forum, not so much for the sake of the one I am debating but for the sake of those who are on the sideline weighing the arguments. Most of the time the one I am debating will not be swayed in their belief, but others might. I wish there was some way to know how many are in the grandstand observing? If we knew then we would be more careful to tighten up our arguments. Truth, will prevail in the end but the immediate cost may be great as it was for our brothers in the early Anabaptist arena, Grebel, Mantz, Blurock etc. Thanks to their debating I am Anabaptist today.

5. You say, "Who cares for them?" but do not indicate who the "Them" is.

6. You said, " God says not to care for some of them - He has given them over". Is it possible that all of those who Paul debated were converted to Christ? Yet Paul reasoned with them with the hope of reaching a few. Peter says to "be ready always to give a reason for the hope that is in you."
Salvation is the work of the Spirit of God it is our job to give a reason.

So, the reason you put this on the forum was to correct some brothers and sisters, but we need more information. I think I am in agreement on most points and that our mission is the souls of men and not argumentation for the sake of argument. And, that the Anabaptist spirit is always kind and considerate yet anchored in truth for Christ's sake.

The Anabaptist spirit is today losing its momentum in the area of debate. David Bercot and Dean Taylor, who are both latecomers to the Anabaptist cause have done wonders in the revival of the Anabaptist cause but more is needed. The Anabaptist who migrated to the United States have gone, pretty much, into seclusion but their message is still true and good, but it has lost its energy. Like Conrad Grebel the Anabaptist message needs to go to the streets and to compel others with good solid reasoning that what the Church has inherited from the Catholics and the Reformers needs to be reformed again. We need an end-time reformation by those who willing the pay the price like those early Anabaptist.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. You mention that several (Anabaptist) have posted responses that are contrary to Anabaptist positions but give no examples of such responses.

They only took the label. The only one I asked about that responded well said it was just a random choice for them. Or something simple like that, not because they are Anabaptist nor think like or believe Anabaptist, etc.

One of two others just made mute excuses and went on, ... (year or two ago; out of memory).

It was an introductory comment, so readers can be aware that just because someone with the label "Anabaptist" posts, it doesn't mean, in any section of any forum, that they agree with Anabaptists , nor even that they agree with Scripture (i.e. do not assume anything on the forum(s) .

2. You mention that most threads would not be suitable for (Anabaptist) discussion, but here again, do not point out which type or kind you are referring to, or why they would not be suitable.

Too many forum /site/ rules concerning this. Cannot freely and openly "call them out".
Not without being quickly banned, that is. Then gone for one to three or even six months, without recourse usually. (it usually doesn't matter if a poster means what someone else reprts them for - and challenging can be challenging, at least. Sometimes it is worth it, sometimes... )

3. You say, "Most posters, when confronted with the truth, back down."

On many forums this is true. When the truth is posted, and it is exposing or embarrassing someone, one or two or more can conspire if they want and get the poster banned/ silenced/ warned. Even trying to discuss this is or may be risky.

b. When you say "Most posters" do you mean Anabaptist or others?

Both? Yet there's not many Anabaptist I know of, and usually not anything they post is a concern (other than being mistaken for Anabaptist if they are not - but that's very minor and insignificant as far as I know or am aware) .....

So, the reason you put this on the forum was to correct some brothers and sisters, but we need more information.

More to find (not to correct) some brothers and sisters. Little by little, it has been very slow, and must be, apparently, -- it is much much more difficult to find honesty today than 20 years ago, and on anonymous internet, very little over all is what it seems, eh?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Follow up reply to further in the post:

You say "Others fight against it in vanity…" Who are the others? And, if it is in "vanity" then it is wrong, but if it is for the sake of truth then let truth prevail. I will admit that I too enter into debates on this forum, not so much for the sake of the one I am debating but for the sake of those who are on the sideline weighing the arguments.

Yes, much the same - for "others' to realize the abominations of some of the posters, the ones who post daily sometimes, for years, in heresy openly, like ur and worse.... but there is no way to silence them on this forum. They can keep right on posting errors without accepting any limit or correction, UNLESS they admit they are not Christian - then there are some limits; but if they still claim they are Christian, though they cause many to stumble, there is no way to silence them - only to post replies to warn other who may care. There are hundreds of readers visiting daily, and that is just the ones signed in. There may be ten times as many reading the forums (which won't help them, either way, without a change of heart) who do not sign in - only reading ....

Most of the time the one I am debating will not be swayed in their belief, but others might. I wish there was some way to know how many are in the grandstand observing?

No one has been saved in the decade plus I've been watching forums and asking if anyone has been saved. ONE , only ONE, reported back after seeing the errors exposed on the forum of the world beast, they went off site to investigate for themselves, and found the truth, and came back and said thank you to all us who made it known. There is too much confusion and deception on the forum for someone to learn from the forum.

If we knew then we would be more careful to tighten up our arguments. Truth, will prevail in the end but the immediate cost may be great as it was for our brothers in the early Anabaptist arena, Grebel, Mantz, Blurock etc. Thanks to their debating I am Anabaptist today.

Some are posting really 'tight'/ good Scriptural posts against many errors, but that doesn't seem to help most people who post - almost no one ever changes their position ---- but remember, on the forum they only can get so much 'input' to their lives, and it is helter skelter here, so won't make much impact as it is. THEN , when they go offline , they have their own family, group, and so on, that they are with DAILY, sometimes all their life, whose "input" to them is more important than SCRIPTURE even, so also more important than here on the mixed up forum.... so unless they can escape their group and family, it's not likely they can escape the errors either. (when it is another religion or false teachings)

5. You say, "Who cares for them?" but do not indicate who the "Them" is.

"Them" is those above, the ones who Jesus came for - the lost and sick.
The only hope the sick have is the Shepherd, that they will turn to Him, call on Him, LISTEN TO HIM, to be healed and saved.

6. You said, " God says not to care for some of them - He has given them over". Is it possible that all of those who Paul debated were converted to Christ? Yet Paul reasoned with them with the hope of reaching a few. Peter says to "be ready always to give a reason for the hope that is in you."
Salvation is the work of the Spirit of God it is our job to give a reason.

Referring to those God gives over to believe their own delusions, not just unbelievers, but those called "Christian" who on Judgment day are told bye. They won't listen to someone who rose from the dead, to Scripture rightly divided , or to God speaking from heaven ! So He , knowing their hearts perfectly, when He gives them over to believe their own delusions, their own 'beliefs', that's that for them.

Like when Jesus PRAYED

"I do not pray for the world, but for the disciples" .... "and for those who will be disciples after them"....
that the disciples MAY BE ECHAD!!!
As You Father are ECHAD with ME, and I with You, that the disciples You have given Me may all be ECHAD (ONE) with us" (now, today, in this life!)

As written : "living in union with Jesus and the Father" ...DAILY
"living in union with one another" ... DAILY
"full of righteousness, peace and joy" .... DAILY

 

[SteveIndy]

Follow up reply to further in the post:

Yes, much the same - for "others' to realize the abominations of some of the posters, the ones who post daily sometimes, for years, in heresy openly, like ur and worse.... but there is no way to silence them on this forum. They can keep right on posting errors without accepting any limit or correction, UNLESS they admit they are not Christian - then there are some limits; but if they still claim they are Christian, though they cause many to stumble, there is no way to silence them - only to post replies to warn other who may care. There are hundreds of readers visiting daily, and that is just the ones signed in. There may be ten times as many reading the forums (which won't help them, either way, without a change of heart) who do not sign in - only reading ....


No one has been saved in the decade plus I've been watching forums and asking if anyone has been saved. ONE , only ONE, reported back after seeing the errors exposed on the forum of the world beast, they went off site to investigate for themselves, and found the truth, and came back and said thank you to all us who made it known. There is too much confusion and deception on the forum for someone to learn from the forum.

Some are posting really 'tight'/ good Scriptural posts against many errors, but that doesn't seem to help most people who post - almost no one ever changes their position ---- but remember, on the forum they only can get so much 'input' to their lives, and it is helter skelter here, so won't make much impact as it is. THEN , when they go offline , they have their own family, group, and so on, that they are with DAILY, sometimes all their life, whose "input" to them is more important than SCRIPTURE even, so also more important than here on the mixed up forum.... so unless they can escape their group and family, it's not likely they can escape the errors either. (when it is another religion or false teachings)


"Them" is those above, the ones who Jesus came for - the lost and sick.
The only hope the sick have is the Shepherd, that they will turn to Him, call on Him, LISTEN TO HIM, to be healed and saved.


Referring to those God gives over to believe their own delusions, not just unbelievers, but those called "Christian" who on Judgment day are told bye. They won't listen to someone who rose from the dead, to Scripture rightly divided , or to God speaking from heaven ! So He , knowing their hearts perfectly, when He gives them over to believe their own delusions, their own 'beliefs', that's that for them.

Like when Jesus PRAYED

"I do not pray for the world, but for the disciples" .... "and for those who will be disciples after them"....
that the disciples MAY BE ECHAD!!!
As You Father are ECHAD with ME, and I with You, that the disciples You have given Me may all be ECHAD (ONE) with us" (now, today, in this life!)

As written : "living in union with Jesus and the Father" ...DAILY
"living in union with one another" ... DAILY
"full of righteousness, peace and joy" .... DAILY

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your thoughts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Several at least (by label Anabaptist) who have posted in various sections in the last year, are contrary to Anabaptist.

Which means that they believe in adult baptism.
Other than that, they are diverse as anyone else.
Being "anabaptist" they are more liberal than conservative churches who practice only infant baptism.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is awkward, since even Anabaptists are not Anabaptists all the time.

So they switch to infant baptism on occasion? Harmless activity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Which means that they believe in adult baptism.

Why ? i.e. not necessarily.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So they switch to infant baptism on occasion? Harmless activity.

Some people worldwide are already condemned because of unbelief.

When did "condemned" come to mean "harmless activity" anywhere ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Being "anabaptist" they are more liberal than conservative churches who practice only infant baptism.

That certainly appears to be a wrong use/ definition (I've never seen ) for the word "liberal",
and likewise for Anabaptists. (Never heard anyone anywhere claim (in error?) that they are liberal.)

 

[SkyWriting]

That certainly appears to be a wrong use/ definition (I've never seen ) for the word "liberal",
and likewise for Anabaptists. (Never heard anyone anywhere claim (in error?) that they are liberal.)

What am I? Chopped liver?

The Anabaptists - History Learning Site

 

[SkyWriting]

Some people worldwide are already condemned because of unbelief.

When did "condemned" come to mean "harmless activity" anywhere ?

Both adult and infant baptisms are limited to believers, all through the galaxy. Perhaps the Marvel Universe as well.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What am I? Chopped liver? ...

< shrugs > who knows?
In the content of your posts for years, you have opposed Anabaptist beliefs and convictions of the truth in Jesus, and opposed to obeying Jesus, while the Anabaptists who are faithful and true, abiding in Jesus, always are willing to obey Jesus, particularly or specifically not permitting perversion, as God does not permit perversion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Both adult and infant baptisms are limited to believers, all through the galaxy. Perhaps the Marvel Universe as well.

Any religion can baptise (immerse) whoever they want to. It has never been limited to true born again Ekklesia set apart by Yahuweh for Himself.
But then, just getting wet (even immersed) does not save the ones without a circumcised heart.

 

[SkyWriting]

Any religion can baptise (immerse) whoever they want to. It has never been limited to true born again Ekklesia set apart by Yahuweh for Himself.
But then, just getting wet (even immersed) does not save the ones without a circumcised heart.

Which non-Christian religions baptize?

 

[SkyWriting]

< shrugs > who knows?
In the content of your posts for years, you have opposed Anabaptist beliefs and convictions of the truth in Jesus, and opposed to obeying Jesus, while the Anabaptists who are faithful and true, abiding in Jesus, always are willing to obey Jesus, particularly or specifically not permitting perversion, as God does not permit perversion.

I don't think you know anything about Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, or Quakers.
So your analysis seems to be based on your local, isolated church. Which is fine by me, just not accurate.

 

[SkyWriting]

< shrugs > who knows?
In the content of your posts for years, you have opposed Anabaptist beliefs and convictions of the truth in Jesus, and opposed to obeying Jesus, while the Anabaptists who are faithful and true, abiding in Jesus, always are willing to obey Jesus, particularly or specifically not permitting perversion, as God does not permit perversion.

So you didn't read the link then.

Anabaptists are what Conservatives would call "Liberal", by definition.

The Anabaptists were a radical religious group that developed from the teachings ofUlrich Zwingli and Martin Luther. However, both Zwingli and Luther rejected the Anabaptists because they deemed them to be too radical. Though the Anabaptists had some support in various parts of Western Europe, they were rejected by Protestants and Catholics alike and all but hunted down.

• Adult baptism (learned repentance)
• Mass to be a memorial service for the baptised
• Free will
• Pacifism; Anabaptists refused to do military service
• Secular laws and oaths were not recognised
• Pastors supported by their congregation
• Tendency towards equality

However, the Anabaptists had no generally accepted doctrine as each group adopted their own specific beliefs and there was no central organisation. The Anabaptists also had no overall leader so there was no John Calvin or Luther-like figure. The influence of the Anabaptists was never extreme because its origins were far from precise. Whereas Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could be specifically associated with a geographic area, the Anabaptists could not. There is some evidence that the Anabaptists developed in Zurich after 1523. Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz were the early ‘leaders’ of the movement. They had discussed with Zwingli child baptism. By 1525, adults in Zurich were being baptised in rivers. This was bitterly opposed by Zwingli and Zwingli agreed that Anabaptists should be drowned in a decree of 1526. This destroyed the group and they survived in a few isolated areas of Switzerland or moved to other areas. The Anabaptists in Strasburg were seen as being too radical for Martin Bucer and were expelled from the city.

Small groups of Anabaptists cropped up throughout Western Europe. Poorer people and peasants tended to gravitate towards the Anabaptists but its success in any small area was the result of what locals did as opposed to what any general leader could organise. With no central leader, the group had no central organisation and suffered accordingly.

Though there was no Anabaptist ‘leader’ the likes of Hans Huth, Balthasar Hubmaier and Jacob Hutter might be considered to be the more famous ‘leaders’. Hans Huth was a wandering bookseller. He was active in South German villages until he was caught by the authorities in Augsburg, tortured and killed. Hubmaier was active in Moravia when he won over a number of converts. He was arrested in 1528 and burned. His wife was drowned in the River Danube. Hutter set up eighty Anabaptist settlements in Moravia. Despite the respect they gained for hard work and sobriety, Hutter was arrested in 1536 and many of his followers fled to Poland or went to what was to become the United States of America.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think you know anything about Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, or Quakers.
So your analysis seems to be based on your local, isolated church. Which is fine by me, just not accurate.

No.
Scripture first.

Your posts declared your position for years now, opposed to Scripture.
Many churches today also oppose Scripture,
and the "world loves its own",
so you may have lots of acceptance there (in many churches).

 

[SkyWriting]

No.
Scripture first.

Your posts declared your position for years now, opposed to Scripture.
Many churches today also oppose Scripture,
and the "world loves its own",
so you may have lots of acceptance there (in many churches).

Now your just angry because you knew nothing about my church, the foundation of the anabaptists. It didn't occur to you that anabaptists are a radical sect.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Ekklesia , OT and NT, Waldensians, Anabaptists, and so forth, are and were all a radical sect.
The ones who allowed perversion in thought or in practice and taught such are radical sinners in danger of much more severe judgment , opposed to Yahuweh's Word, and not obeying Jesus , as they daily live in grievous error and act like all the sons of disobedience in the world (re Ephesians 2).