Calvinism and Orthodoxy

[Maximus]

Right on, brother...just out of curiosity, what made you decide on the Greek Orthodox church? My own looking into Church history has led me to the Anabaptists. This has to do with seeing evidence by scholars who have demonstrated that the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, etc) were almost uniformly pacifist in their doctrine. To me Augustine got us off the track when he justified Christian participation in war. And of course, the Reformation didn't exactly get us back to the Sermon on the Mount ...unless you mean the "Radical Reformation." ;-)

The early Anabaptists were a multifarious lot. Some were unitarians, some were polygamists, etc. What they seemed to have in common was a belief in the necessity of rebaptism, since they did not believe infant baptism efficacious.

Not all Anabaptists were pacifists either. Some, called Schwertler (sword-bearers), believed the state could justly wield the sword under certain circumstances. Other Anabaptists, called Staebler (staff-bearers), were pacifists.

If you continue to study the history of the Church I believe you will find that none of the early Christians held the distinctive beliefs of the Anabaptists.

IMHO your study will lead you to a choice between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

I'm going to go ahead and give you my resources on early church history and let you decide what to make of them:


Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission
by Abraham Friesen
From a couple of reviews on Amazon.com:


****

Friesen uses Kristeller's definition of Renaissance humanism, and explains the influence of neo-Platonic thought upon Erasmus. He further evaluates concepts developed by Erasmus adopted by the Anabaptists. According to Friesen, Erasmus decided that the early church, closest to the archetype of Christ, was purer than the church of his time. Christians are first like Christ internally, rather than externally; rituals and sacraments were better for helping children in Christ. Friesen notes that Erasmus' translations, with annotations, were popular among the Anabaptists. Erasmus was vague about baptism, but he does make mention that children, as they grow up, should have the opportunity to "imitate" baptism. In this procedure, older adults would explain what baptism meant when the children were baptized as youths. Erasmus also suggested that communion could, in theory, be symbolic, that pacifism was ideal for Christians, and that there was a common brotherhood of men. The Christian humanism of Erasmus undoubtedly influenced Anabaptist intellectual development.

Erasmus' approach to the Great Commission was a radically different than others before him. Erasmus asked what Jesus meant, at the time, and how it was interpreted by the apostles, deciding that syntax was critical. Teaching comes both before, and after, baptism in the Great Commission implying that obedience and an understanding of the gospel-as seen in the book of Acts-is critical for baptism and conversion. Erasmus also concludes the stress on baptism's physical nature takes away from its spiritual reality. He suggests that infant baptism accomplishes nothing, and that as children get older, they should have classes explaining what their baptism did for them. This was an imitation, or reiteration, of baptism. Anabaptists wholeheartedly adopted this argument.

*****

What I wish to note here is 2 things: 1) Erasmus felt that the early church was the most pure and 2) this caused him to favor pacifism & downplay the significance of infant baptism. While his use of the Great Commission may have been an innovation, it is clear that these things were what he felt Jesus and the apostles clearly taught, as well as what represented the earliest of the Patristics.

*****

Another review, same book


This book challenges much of the poly-genesis consensus regarding the origins of the Anabaptist or Wiedertaufer movement. It focuses primarily on the intellectual origins of the movement and points to Erasmus as the progenitor of the Anabaptists' teaching on baptism. Friesen makes the fascinating claim that Erasmus' argument, which proposed using the Great Commission as the paradigm for understanding all other baptismal passages, did not occur before Erasmsus and is utilized by all would be Anabaptists. He also uses this argument to separate Anabaptists proper from their more controversial contemporaries like the Zwickau prophets whom he says were influenced by Luther and not Erasmus.


*****

Whether or not the Anabaptists were influenced by Erasmus is up for debate, but it’s also clear that the mish-mash view you gave me of them is hardly universally held. Not by anyone who has studied the movement anyway.


An Introduction to Mennonite History: A Popular History of the Anabaptists and the Mennonites
by Cornelius J. Dyck


Spiritual Life in Anabaptism
by Cornelius J. Dyck (Translator)


These pretty mush speak for themselves. From a noted Anabaptist historian and scholar, their history & theology as Anabaptists today understand their heritage, is detailed in these two books. The second one is my favorite because it gives a cursory read of their teachings by citing from the Anabaptist leaders themselves.


Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation
by Roland H. Bainton


This details the early church’s development from the earliest post-new Testament writers up through Augustine. It drives you to the conclusion that the Catholic and Protestant churches followed a different path from that of Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, etc., who were following what Christ taught. (Bainton is a Lutheran historian!)


How Christians Made Peace With War: Early Christian Understandings of War
by John Driver


This is the Mennonite perspective, Here is one review from Amazon.com:

Balanced, Kind, and Informative, November 25, 2003


Reviewer: A reader from Washington State

This short book is a must-read for anyone seeking to explore the idea of pacifism, as it stems from early church theology. The books gives an overview of early Christian thinkers and how the idea of service in the military was seen as inappropriate for Christians--both because of the issue of idolatry (state worship) and because of the teachings of Christ. It also summarizes how that foundational church thinking changed when the Roman Emperor became a "Christian" and Christians began thinking that the Emperor’s conquests were an extension of God's will. Some very interesting parallels for today--many modern Christians equate the actions of the government with God's actions. A highly recommended title that was eye-opening to me.


****


The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster
by John Howard Yoder


Christian Attitudes Toward War, Peace, and Revolution: A Companion to Bainton;

John Howard Yoder


Yoder was for many years a prof. of theology at Notre Dame. I’m sure few men were as familiar with the devisersity between Roman Catholic claims to historicity vs. the Anabaptist understanding of NT ethics & how they were changed by the time of Augustine. The second book is harder to find, but well worth it.



Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity
by David W. Bercot


A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs
by David W. Bercot (Editor)


From a student of the Early Church who was Anglican, but as I understand, is now a Mennonite!


It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State
by Jean Michel Hornus


From the author’s preface: ( http://bocs.hu/hornus-a-0.htm)


"I hope, then, to prove that, from the very beginning and throughout the first three centuries of the primitive Church, its teaching-not just the fancy of a few individuals-was constantly and rigorously opposed to Christian participation in military service. I hope also to prove that this opposition was not based on a particular situation-the cult of the emperor-but on a fundamental decision: to reject violence and to respect life. Finally I shall attempt to explain how and why this position, which was so firm and clear in its principle, was abandoned during the fourth century. If my conclusions are sound, they inevitably pose two further questions. First, is it not likely that the understanding of the gospel of the Christians of the first three centuries was far closer to the authentic gospel than the understandings which have been prevalent since then? And second, did the theologians of the Constantinian era really get what they wanted from the bargain which they struck with the state, thereby justifying in their own eyes a new attitude of Christians toward the army? If not, is it not high time that we review their decision in the light of history, which demonstrates that they had been duped into a disadvantageous exchange from which nothing was gained, and in which the loss was fidelity to the gospel?"



Anyhoo, I think these works should be sufficient enough to refute you assertion that “none of the early Christians held the distinctive beliefs of the Anabaptists.” Quite to the contrary. Also, I think you need to take back your claim that study of the Early Church leads us to Catholicism. It hasn’t for many noted authors & scholars.

 

[Oblio]

I'm going to go ahead and give you my resources on early church history and let you decide what to make of them:

Nothing wrong with this though in the future you need to be aware of any copyright restrictions and fair use law in C&Ping of the reviews.

Anyhoo, I think these works should be sufficient enough to refute you assertion that “none of the early Christians held the distinctive beliefs of the Anabaptists.” Quite to the contrary. Also, I think you need to take back your claim that study of the Early Church leads us to Catholicism. It hasn’t for many noted authors & scholars.

[mod]
This is where I draw the line. Statements such as sufficient enough to refute you assertion or I think you need to take back your claim are clearly of a debate nature. While you are welcome to ask respectful questions on Orthodoxy on this forum, you may not debate with the members here. Please respect the rules of CF and those who wish to discuss Orthodoxy and those who wish to learn about our historic Christian faith.
[/mod]

 

[Patristic]

Well folk, there were a lot of factors that led me to Orthodoxy, but when I read the writings of the early Fathers in conjunction with Scripture and then sat down to examine individual churches, I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the Church closest to the one I found in the writings of the early Fathers.

It's interesting to know that you came to believe that Anabaptists was the closest representation of the early church. I read Bercot's book, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, and even though he was Anglican at the time, it was obvious he showed a strong leaning towards Anabaptist teachings. I think he was right about the early Fathers being very pacifistic in their beliefs, but it might interest you to know that the East has always held strong views against war. One reason why the East was overrun during the crusades was that at the time service in the military was still strongly disapproved for Christians. Whereas in the West, many groups sprang up that merged knight and churchmen and the class of warrior became a holy profession.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Very interesting....thank you for enlightening me on that about the East. One (more ) reason I reject Calvinism is that they steadfastly hold to the just war doctrine that is a later innovation, not foundational Christian teaching.


I'm not allowed to debate with you guys on here, but I will say that I did a little looking into the issue of infant baptism, and the arguments put forth by Catholics on that doctrine, and I found them to be mostly unconvincing, and based on a lot of broad assumptions about certain Biblical texts & certain statements by the Patristics. Bercot's reasons for his exit from his own pedobaptist denomination were based largely on his having done extensive research in historical theology.

 

[MariaRegina]

Very interesting....thank you for enlightening me on that about the East. One (more ) reason I reject Calvinism is that they steadfastly hold to the just war doctrine that is a later innovation, not foundational Christian teaching.

I'm not allowed to debate with you guys on here, but I will say that I did a little looking into the issue of infant baptism, and the arguments put forth by Catholics on that doctrine, and I found them to be mostly unconvincing, and based on a lot of broad assumptions about certain Biblical texts & certain statements by the Patristics.

Dear Folk:

How do you interpret Christ's command not to prevent the little children from coming to Him?

Our God does not trick or deceive us. If Christ our God wants the children to come to Him, then He wants them to receive the fullness of His Sanctifying Grace. When we receive the Holy Sacraments of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist, we are purified, sanctified and illuminated. Do you think that Jesus Christ would deny this to His little ones who chant His praises at even two years of age?

I have known little three year olds who have reached the age of reason. Then there are the distinguished non-Orthodox Church men who have ruled that somehow the age of 7 or 12 must be reached before children can receive baptism. Isn't this discriminatory?

Doesn't the "whole household" imply that children and infants were also baptized, along with slaves and any servants? Here I am referring the St. Silas the jailor and his whole household who were baptized.

Doesn't 'whole' mean 'entire' and not just part (the parents only)?

Hope this helps.

Yours in Christ,
Elizabeth

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Since we can't debate on this forum...I think you will have to just email me in private & I'll answer those questions.

 

[Oblio]

Or you could open a thread in IDD if you disagree with infant Baptism and wish to discuss it

BTW, thank you for complying with my request WRT debating here at TAW:OC

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

If that would be possbile, I suppose I would...but this site has the most retarded rules. No links posted until you have 15 posts. No images or posting on certain forums until you have 100. What a buch of legalistic crapola! Anyhoo, when I reach my holy grail of 100 posts, I'll proly start a thread, but I think I'll make it rmore directly related to Anabpatist issues.

 

[Oblio]

My mistake

After you are here for a bit you will understand and maybe even appreciate those 'retarded' rules. Though you might not as you would have to have been here when we had a influx of refugees from MBs which shall remain nameless, trolls, anti-Orthodox and anti-Catholics whos prime reason for posting was to stir up trouble and dissent with out even getting to know the community first. I certainly don't think that is your intent, but the rules have to apply to all.

 

[mscht]

I am a newbie, but this subject interest me abit. I am a SB. I think of the infant baptizms as a symbolic significance made publicly by the parents to per se, enter a covenant(?) with God that they will raise said child in a christian home. The age of accountability, IMO would only be known by God. Because the age of accountability may never come for a person with say, some birth defect that prevents maturing. If someone remains at preschool mentality, are they not exempt? I certainly am not debating. I am fairly new to pc's (a year) This is my first adventure from beginners forum, and hope I am not stepping too fast. LOL Please enlighten me because I am only familiar with my own beliefs. I came here to learn about others beliefs and even non beliefs. I am certainly not here to judge nor insult. Thanking yuou in advance. : )

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Interesting...so is this site itself run by folks from the Catholic & Orthodox traditions?

 

[Oblio]

Interesting...so is this site itself run by folks from the Catholic & Orthodox traditions?

Actually it is run by folks from all orthodox confessions. Those that attack and troll against any faith (including Protestantism) are seen for what they are and are dealt with either directly or indirectly by rules to thwart their un-Christian behavior.

 

[Oblio]

Welcome mscht,

In the Church Baptism is certainly a covenental as well as Sacramental (or Mystery as it is called in the East) rite. It is significant that you bring up the raising of a child in a Christian home (and church) as this is paramount in the childs spiritual development and progression towards becoming like Christ (Theosis). This is one of the reasons why it seems odd for an cradle (born into and nurtured in the faith) Orthodox Christian to accept or receive Christ, for he or she has been raised from birth to Worship the All Holy Trinity. It makes about as much sense as asking a child to receive their parents as those that love them and protect them.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

So by "all orthodox confessions"... you mean...all Christian denominations?

It's interesting, I noticed there was an Election debate going on another thread here, and 2 days before Christmas it was shut down. Those Calvinists sure showed me thier belief in hyper-determinism was not the path to true Christian humility like they insist. Sarcasm, attitiudes, bickering...arrggh! And they wonder why nobody wants to join thier ranks?

 

[Oblio]

I doubt all Christian denominations could be represented here, we don't have enough members yet

We do try to limit those that serve on staff to those that hold to the same core Christian beliefs that are required to post in the Christian areas (IOW the Nicean/Constantinopolitan Creed)

Most congregation forums are served by members of that faith. IOW, Orthodox here, Catholics in OBOB, Protestants in PRE.

 

[mscht]

Thank you for the welcome. Funny you should use "trinity". Just today, I told someone what I believed (trinity) and they gave me a website telling me it was peculiar that I said I wasn't "taught" trinity. I WAS! LOL I just never knew any different. So, to me I didn't realize what the term meant ,but MY definiton was exactly as it read at a SB official website. I call myself a baptist with a pentecostal twist. LOL I enjoy worshipping with both denominations. I am unfamiliar with MANY religions and/or beliefs. I will be 38 tomorrow and only in recent months realized that others didn't always believe as I , but they were still christians. I am here to learn about others beliefs. I want to understand them. I am secure with my salvation, not looking for religion. Just looking to understand others. LOL I feel it is certainly NOT my place to judge anyone. I do believe there will be many of many faiths in what I believe as heaven. How it will really look, how my God appears in any form, they are irrelevant to me. I just know whatever it is like, I WILL like it. LOL I guess it shows that I am ignorant in scripture. I can only quote ohn 3:16. But, IMO, God knows what is in my heart. I hope I am not posting out of regulation. As an adult, I realize EVERYTHING has to have rules. Runs alot smoother. I am catching on. This is my first "outside adventure" from newbies. I look forward to learning and conversing with the many posters. Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[MariaRegina]

Thank you for the welcome. Funny you should use "trinity". Just today, I told someone what I believed (trinity) and they gave me a website telling me it was peculiar that I said I wasn't "taught" trinity. I WAS! LOL I just never knew any different. So, to me I didn't realize what the term meant ,but MY definiton was exactly as it read at a SB official website. I call myself a baptist with a pentecostal twist. LOL I enjoy worshipping with both denominations. I am unfamiliar with MANY religions and/or beliefs. I will be 38 tomorrow and only in recent months realized that others didn't always believe as I , but they were still christians. I am here to learn about others beliefs. I want to understand them. I am secure with my salvation, not looking for religion. Just looking to understand others. LOL I feel it is certainly NOT my place to judge anyone. I do believe there will be many of many faiths in what I believe as heaven. How it will really look, how my God appears in any form, they are irrelevant to me. I just know whatever it is like, I WILL like it. LOL I guess it shows that I am ignorant in scripture. I can only quote ohn 3:16. But, IMO, God knows what is in my heart. I hope I am not posting out of regulation. As an adult, I realize EVERYTHING has to have rules. Runs alot smoother. I am catching on. This is my first "outside adventure" from newbies. I look forward to learning and conversing with the many posters. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Welcome and visit us again.

 

[Oblio]

mscht,

You are always welcome to ask questions about Orthodoxy here. Most of our little group are converts themselves (I myself was SB) and many are quite knowlegable in the history and theology of the Church and welcome questions, even if it is only to help a dedicated and commited lifelong Protestant to learn what the Church actually believes and why she believes it.

 

[mscht]

Thank you. I appreciate the warm welcome and clarification of matters. <grin> I am quite interested, but for now, I won't keep messing the thread up. I look forward to talking with all of you.

I also am reaearching another topic currently. I just found out about "Little Christmas" on the sixth of January. I was given a link earlier to research about this holiday. I want to know about these things. I just know what I know. LOL Thank you again. Have a good night to everyone!

Cynthia