Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Check out some church history, even your own Catholic church history, and you will see that Catholic bishops in the Netherlands coined the term Mennonites to refer to those anabaptists that were being taught by an overseer (bishop) named Menno Simons, who was an ex-priest. It was a term of contempt, meant in the same way and tone that the word "papist" is used against your church. See the parallel? Mennonite, papist: ridiculing a group by debasing the name or title of their spiritual leader?geocajun said:wow, I had never heard this before. I see so many churches proclaim themselves to be "Mennonite". Can you tell me more about this?
Christ founded our church, too, which is why the term Mennonite was perjorative. We do not trace our history back to Menno, but to Christ. Anabaptists found it offensive as catholics find papist to be offensive today. We did not choose the name, we just accepted it as "our cross to bear."geocajun said:lambslove, I have checked out church history, which is why I am in the church I am in today.
If what you say is true, than Mennonite is no more a pejorative term than Lutheran, or Calvinist. It simply denotes the man whos teachings which you follow. This is not something contested by Lutherans, or Calvinists or Mennonites, however it is something contested by Catholics, who teach that Christ founded our Church, and we follow Christ. The Pope is just the vicar of Christ, but not the man which we follow. This is why the term papist, or romanist is pejorative. This is why we do not use the term to define our church, whereas lutherans, calvinists, a mennonites do.
geocajun said:Thanks Red, is he Baptist?
I didn't turn it into a thread about persecution, you brought up the subject.geocajun said:lambslove, I just checked on the net, and did not find any source showing the source of the name mennonite being pejorative. could you provide one?
also, why derail my thread? This isn't a thread on church history, or persecution.. please dont turn it into one.
If you want to compare history notes, please start a thread in OBOB, and I'll be happy to show you the roots of the Catholic faith.
I don't mind discussing it one-on-one, but I don't think it will lead to anything good if we post it in GT because of the propensity for "gang-ups" and fighting there.geocajun said:lambslove, how about GT? neutral ground.
You know what ? I am so sorry, I had no idea that that was in there. I read that thing through once before and I must have just skimmed by it. Please except my apology as I did not mean to offend you in any way.geocajun said:Llolard, I read your post right up until the part where he said "Romanists" and then I quit and dismissed everything he had to say.
I have asked you a question which I would appreciate being answered with the charity and integrity befitting a disciple of Christ. I did not come here to be called names.
So far everyone else has been very kind to this Catholic in their responses, and I appreciate that.
very gracious of you to say that Lollard, thank you! I forgive you.Lollard said:You know what ? I am so sorry, I had no idea that that was in there. I read that thing through once before and I must have just skimmed by it. Please except my apology as I did not mean to offend you in any way.
Albert Barnes is generally a respected author, and I use his stuff all the time. I am embarrassed. Please forgive me.
I appreciate that. I will go back and edit the post if you like.geocajun said:very gracious of you to say that Lollard, thank you! I forgive you.![]()
thats ok Lollard, thanks for offering to do that though.Lollard said:I appreciate that. I will go back and edit the post if you like.
I have struggled with that verse for many years.geocajun said:Can someone help me to understand what Baptists interpret this verse to mean?
Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,
Thanks!
by the way, I am just gathering information here, not intened to start any sort of debate - so please do not be offended if I am not responsive.
Also if you can respond with some authoritative sources on Baptist theology that would be very helpful.