Many different Anabaptist sects under one heading

MrJim · Aug 9, 2006

WalkInHisFootsteps said:
It matters if they are presenting it as a matter of absolute doctrine, yes.

Ah, are you thinking along the lines of the "Tradition" a la RCC regarding early church writings being authoritative?

ZiSunka · Aug 9, 2006

menno said:
Ah, are you thinking along the lines of the "Tradition" a la RCC regarding early church writings being authoritative?

Yup.

So many people think that the "early church fathers" (the only ones we know anything about are the ones who published written works--there may have been others who either never published their take on doctrine or whose works perished sometime during the last 2000 years) speak with the same authority as the Lord, but there's no basis for that.

The only writings we have would seem to indicate that most early Christians believed that the bread and wine become flesh and blood, yet we know there are Christian sects that can be traced back to the early days that never had that doctrine.

The only writings that survived are the western, largely European writers connected to the catholic church. We can thus only know what the catholic take on things was.

MrJim · Aug 10, 2006

Is there any validity then in those works? Are you suggesting maybe there was a "conspiracy" that destroyed other early works?

David Bercot at www.scrollpublishing.com uses all kinds of early church writings as a basis of teaching and he's a baptist-turned anabaptist-turned anglican-returned to anabaptist (plain) guy.

ZiSunka · Aug 10, 2006

I'm just saying that we take the few men whose writings have survived and make them out to be special, having special insight into the mind of Christ, when in reality, no such specialness can be inferred simply from the fact that their writings survived.

Even the argument that God preserved the good writings and all the writings that weren't preserved were bad, doesn't really wash. If God only allows the correct doctrine to survive, why do we have gnostic and essene writings from those times? Certainly their doctrine is utterly wrong, yet copies of the gnositc writings exist from the 1st century.

I just am questioning by what authority do these writings claim to be insight into the mind of Christ or even the early church?

MrJim · Aug 10, 2006

I would say that because some of these guys were disciples of the disciples would lend some creedence to their writing.

It doesn't make the writing divinely inspired, but should be examined closely and see if it is contrary to the scripture. If it is not, then perhaps some of our floundering about could be alleviated by checking the course the disciple's disciples took.

ZiSunka · Aug 10, 2006

menno said:
I would say that because some of these guys were disciples of the disciples would lend some creedence to their writing.

It doesn't make the writing divinely inspired, but should be examined closely and see if it is contrary to the scripture. If it is not, then perhaps some of our floundering about could be alleviated by checking the course the disciple's disciples took.

They'd really be disciples of disciples of disciples of disciples, at least. Tertullian lived more than 200 years after Christ, Justin Martyr lived 150 years after Christ, Augustine lived 350 years after Christ. Those guys weren't getting the info second or even third hand. They were already living with tradition by then.

It would be like us saying that we understand what Alexander Hamilton was thinking in his writings because we are so close in time to his life. Even if we were taught by the student of the student of the student of the student of the student...of his student, it is very unlikely we are going to be able to claim authority in interpretting his writings unless we have something to back up that claim. And we are only 200 years past his death.

Just being closer in time doesn't hold much weight when claiming authority.

MrJim · Aug 10, 2006

WalkInHisFootsteps said:
They'd really be disciples of disciples of disciples of disciples, at least. Tertullian lived more than 200 years after Christ, Justin Martyr lived 150 years after Christ, Augustine lived 350 years after Christ. Those guys weren't getting the info second or even third hand. They were already living with tradition by then.

It would be like us saying that we understand what Alexander Hamilton was thinking in his writings because we are so close in time to his life. Even if we were taught by the student of the student of the student of the student of the student...of his student, it is very unlikely we are going to be able to claim authority in interpretting his writings unless we have something to back up that claim. And we are only 200 years past his death.

Just being closer in time doesn't hold much weight when claiming authority.

Dudes like Polycarp & Clement were disciples of the disciples.

I would say that to eliminate what they wrote would be cutting off yourself from your history. For all to do that would simply create a rather selfcentered religion that leaves everything for ME to decide how to understand the scripture--just me and my feelings (oh, and the holy spirit).

Oh wait, that already describes much of the church today, doesn't it? We don't need anything but me and a bible and the holy spirit, which most of us can't discern properly anyhow. It's not been going very well by what I've seen.

I don't hold the early church writings or the anabaptist writings as scripture. They are more like pastors than anything else. When I read them I read as though there is a pastor in pulpit speaking to me. I don't think the pastor is divine, nor a vicar of Christ (which one reformed Baptist preacher said as much one time-when he speaks it's as though Jesus was speaking to us), but rather as a servant of God preaching. That's all. It ain't scripture. But it ain't "Purpose Driven Life" drivel either.

ZiSunka · Aug 10, 2006

Polycarp lived from 70 AD to 155 AD. He was the disciple of a disciple of a disciple, unless people lived a lot longer back then than they do now (although the age of mortality was 39 back then).

If you mean Clement of Alexandria, which I assume you do since he is the one that did all the writings, he died in 215 AD, which unless he was over 100 years old, he didn't even meet any of the disciples.

As for either accepting their writings or having a me-centered religion, I think you've been dipping into the communion wine too much. It is possible to have a Christ-centered faith without the assistence of any of the early writers (I hesitate to call them fathers just because their writings have survived to this day). What they wrote should be considered commentary that answered questions within the context of their culture of that day, and even then, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The earth isn't flat and there is no bird that immolates itself through fire so it can be born anew from the ashes, although that is an illustration Clement used to show how a person is born again. I doubt God would find it necessary or desirable to use an African myth to illustrate His spiritual truth.

I think it is fine to use their writings as commentary, but they should not be elevated to the level of being a glimpse into the minds of the disciples, let alone Christ. And even when using them as commentary, one should make himself completely familiar with the context of the culture it was written in.

Danfrey · Aug 10, 2006

Wow Menno,

Such strength in what you are saying. This is the one post that I can actually pick up on the body language.

Many people don't understand how we approach the early writings. Wether they are writings from the sectular sources or Christian sources, they help us see how Christians were reacting to Jesus' teachings. Another example is looking at how an Apostles student understood a give passage that was written by their teacher. Even if one does not believe we have writings that are a direct connection to the Apostles, it would make sense that the traditions and interpretations were better in a time when people were still reading the writings in a language that they spoke. It would be logical to believe that someone who had the benefit of two way conversation understood what they meant better than me 1900 years later having a one way conversation in a translated foreign language. Let's take the headcover for an example. We can look at historical writings and find the early christians discussing if it applies to married women only, or all women. We can see pictures on the walls of the catacombs of ladies wearing veils. These things are not canonical writings, but they still help us weed through the many interpretations of 1 Cor 11. I am not trying to start another headcover thread, only using it as an example I am familiar with.

People are quick to discount the early writings because often times they are different from we have decided is truth. We live in a world that believes Christianity skipped from Jesus to Martin Luther.

ZiSunka · Aug 10, 2006

People are quick to discount the early writings because often times they are different from we have decided is truth. We live in a world that believes Christianity skipped from Jesus to Martin Luther.

I'm not quick to discount them for the reason you state. I'm also not quick to discount them for any reason. I think they get too much authority placed on them by people who don't remember they were writing decades, sometimes centuries after Christ, when traditions were already entrenched in the church.

You also need to realize that the versions we find in bookstores today are usually sanitized editions with the unpopular and unscriptural things taken out. I have a copy of Augustine's writings from 1804, and a copy of the same writings from 1970, and they are very different. Entire passages are completely missing, and words are subtly changed to reflect modern attitudes. It's almost like reading two different books by two different authors. But as modern readers, we assume we know everything there is to know after reading one edition. Sad, to place so much responsibility on men who were merely human.

Danfrey · Aug 10, 2006

I guess you would have to look at a given situation to see how much weight is placed on their writings. They are simply another tool in helping us understand the meaning of scripture. Nobody here is trying to lift them up to infallible or inspired status, just consulting some guys who were closer to the source. Many people will use Matthew Henry or one of the many other Bible commentaries, why not use Clement, or Justin, or Ireaneus, or Tertullian?

ZiSunka · Aug 11, 2006

Danfrey said:
I guess you would have to look at a given situation to see how much weight is placed on their writings. They are simply another tool in helping us understand the meaning of scripture. Nobody here is trying to lift them up to infallible or inspired status, just consulting some guys who were closer to the source. Many people will use Matthew Henry or one of the many other Bible commentaries, why not use Clement, or Justin, or Ireaneus, or Tertullian?

Using them as commentaries, I'm fine with that.

Using them as absolute authorities, I'm not fine with that.

If you are calling them Early Church Writers, great. If you are calling them Early Church Fathers, I got problems. The word Fathers implies that they gave birth to Christianity, created the foundations of the faith which must be respected and accepted based on their status as "fathers" like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are fathers of this country.

I've got copies of most of the more popular early writers and I do read them as use them as commentary. But I can't bring myself to say, "This is the way Justin Martyr saw things, therefore, it must be gospel truth, the only correct way of seeing things."

Danfrey · Aug 11, 2006

WalkInHisFootsteps said:
Using them as commentaries, I'm fine with that.

Using them as absolute authorities, I'm not fine with that.

If you are calling them Early Church Writers, great. If you are calling them Early Church Fathers, I got problems. The word Fathers implies that they gave birth to Christianity, created the foundations of the faith which must be respected and accepted based on their status as "fathers" like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are fathers of this country.

I've got copies of most of the more popular early writers and I do read them as use them as commentary. But I can't bring myself to say, "This is the way Justin Martyr saw things, therefore, it must be gospel truth, the only correct way of seeing things."

I don't think they would be comfortable with the term fathers. Occaisionally I will reference them that way because that is what it says on the book bindings Not because I feel like they birthed christianity. Jesus was responsible for that.

ZiSunka · Aug 11, 2006

Danfrey said:
I don't think they would be comfortable with the term fathers. Occaisionally I will reference them that way because that is what it says on the book bindings Not because I feel like they birthed christianity. Jesus was responsible for that.

Then we are cool.

Read and enjoy with my full blessings!

Schroeder · Aug 15, 2006

Imblessed said:
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This seems to cover the basics pretty well......

taken from http://www.hgst.edu/statement.html

Statement of Faith[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Theological Character and Position Houston Graduate School of Theology identifies with the Quaker movement (the Society of Friends) that arose within the latter part of the Reformation period in England. The Friends church is a form of the historic evangelical Christianity that has persisted from the days of the Apostles to the present, and our spirit and faith include what is held in common by the various evangelical denominations. We confess our faith in Jesus Christ and commit our lives to him and to the service of his church. We affirm our faith, not in order to exclude from the circle of faith those who may differ on some point, but rather to offer a positive witness as to the reality and experience of Christ and the Holy Spirit within our lives and within the community of faith that has nurtured us.[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Friends, though not creedal in emphasis, have produced several statements, which are, for all intents and purposes, evangelical confessions. Our purpose is to affirm the substance and spirit of these:[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) The Letter of George Fox to the Governor of Barbados in 1671.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) The Apology of Robert Barclay, written in Latin in 1676 and translated into English in 1678.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) The Richmond Declaration of Faith, adopted at a major conference of the Society of Friends in Richmond, Indiana, in 1887.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]We believe:[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the one, living, and true God, who has created and sustains all things, who is perfect in love and righteousness in all his ways, who is one in essence, but exists eternally in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That God is the source of truth, that he discloses himself to humankind in creation, in the history of his dealings with his people, through sacred Scripture, and directly by inward and unmediated revelation, which is necessary for the building up of Christian faith but does not contradict the testimony of the Christian Scriptures.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the essential and reliable records of divine revelation. Scripture is given by divine inspiration and authority and is fully sufficient for guidance in all matters of faith and practice. The Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures must ever be their true interpreter as he works through the disciplined and dedicated minds of those within his church. Under his guidance scripture is to be interpreted in each of its parts according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who reveals himself through them.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That Scripture teaches the truth about the human condition, that we are created in the image of God, capable of abundant life, creative works and fulfillment, and happiness in fellowship with him, but that fellowship was broken through the disobedience of our first parents, and so all persons are estranged from God, under the power of sin, and in need of redemption. God's grace is necessary as the remedy of sin, and his prevenient grace has restored moral awareness and enables all persons to respond to his love and accept his saving grace, if they will.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the death of Christ as the necessary atonement for the sins of humanity, the death of him who, though God's only Son, our Lord, was conceived by Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, dead and buried, but rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and will come again to judge the living and the dead.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That those who respond to the light which enlightens every man (John 1:9), the light of Jesus Christ (John 12:26), and receive it through trust in Jesus Christ, are justified and regenerated by God, in a holy, pure, and spiritual birth that produces holiness, righteousness, and purity in them. This imparted righteousness and initial sanctification is not the result of any good works on their part, but it is granted through his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a sanctifying act of God which brings a cleansing of the heart through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Peter 3:21). This is a pure and spiritual baptism (Galatians 3:27), by which we are buried with him (Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12) so that being washed and purged of our sins, we may walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That the baptism with the Holy Spirit is given to believers who respond in full surrender and trust to God's call to entire sanctification, not in outward manifestations nor as a human achievement, but solely through the sanctifying grace whereby the Holy Spirit delivers them from sin's power and makes possible wholehearted love for God and for others. There is still room for spiritual growth, but the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep their hearts and their minds in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:7) even though there remains a possibility of sinning if the mind is not diligently and watchfully applied to heeding the Lord.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the inward and spiritual communion of the body and blood of Christ, whereby through participation in his flesh and blood the inward person is nourished daily in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells (John 6:35, 53-55; Revelation 3:20).[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That those who are in such communion with Christ are drawn together into the community of the people of God called the church, for worship, for education, for fellowship, and for service; that God will call and ordain those whom he has given gifts in ministry for leadership and service in the community; and that the church will provide ways for each member to develop and fulfill gifts and callings in ministry in order to build up the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16) and enable the church to fulfill its mission (Matthew 28:18).[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]In the infinite worth of every person and in the sanctity of personality and conscience which respects individual conscience, dignity, and achievements of each person. No person, under pretense of conscience, should prejudice the life or property of his neighbor, or do anything that is destructive to human society or is inconsistent with the spiritual and material welfare of others.[/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]That the chief purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his church is to redeem people in all parts of the world from sinful and vain pursuits of this world and to lead them into inward communion with God and into a community of God's people who will live in submission to God and seek peace with all people. This community, called the Church, will find its ultimate consummation in the personal return of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, and the establishment of God's everlasting kingdom.[/FONT] [/FONT]

hey i think i might fit into this one. that george Fox guy was a pretty cool dude. AMEN "sister"

Antje · Aug 15, 2006

I belong to Mennonite Church Canada. Some of my other church influences include spending 5 summers working at a Mennonite Brethren children's camp, and my grandparents and all their ancestors are of the Evangelical Mennonite Conference (Kleine Gemeinde) for as long as it has existed. I spent two years attending an Anglican church as well, which gave me greater appreciation for the sacrament of communion/the Lord's Supper.

I agree with the poster who said they considered early church writers to be like pastors preaching in the pulpit. I would also include early Anabaptist writers and many other great theologians. People preach God's Word in every age, and that is to be respected. The fact that some teachers have been remembered and valued by the church for thousands of years does give a little extra weight to their witness. However, preachers are still just people and are not God's Word in and of themselves.

Jehane · Aug 15, 2006

I think truth is truth all down through the ages, which is why some writers have outlasted others. Although I have heard of most of those mentioned here I've read none of them so cannot comment on their actual writings as such. However when the NT was put together one thing looked for was consistency of testimony & I have alarm bells go of if I read or hear something that I think is not consistent with scripture. So long as the authors are consistent with scripture there should be no problem

Danfrey · Aug 15, 2006

Jehane said:
I think truth is truth all down through the ages, which is why some writers have outlasted others. Although I have heard of most of those mentioned here I've read none of them so cannot comment on their actual writings as such. However when the NT was put together one thing looked for was consistency of testimony & I have alarm bells go of if I read or hear something that I think is not consistent with scripture. So long as the authors are consistent with scripture there should be no problem

The problem that most of have with the early church writings is that their teachings don't always line up with how the modern church interprets their writings. A few of these teachings would include eternal security, and baptism. We have tens of thousands of denominations that claim sola scriptura yet come to opposing doctrines.

Something that is important when looking at the early writings is to see the big picture. Was the teaching on a given subject different from writer to writer, or did the majority of writings we have from the time support one another. It is not so much about looking at the witness of a given author, as it is looking at the witness of the church of the time. Imagine two senarios....

5 authors agree on what a certain passage means. They live within 200 years of the passage being written, have had the traditions passed down and speak the language the passage is written in.

5 authors agree on what a certain passage means. They live 1800 years after the passage was written, they live in a totally different culture from that which the passage was written in and have to rely on an interpreter to even read the passage.

Which group would be more reliable? Of course there are things to take into account such as did their lives bear spiritual fruit. This is were I see the benefit of the early writers.

Imblessed · Aug 16, 2006

Schroeder said:
hey i think i might fit into this one. that george Fox guy was a pretty cool dude. AMEN "sister"

Thanks "brother"!

ZiSunka · Aug 16, 2006

Something that is important when looking at the early writings is to see the big picture. Was the teaching on a given subject different from writer to writer, or did the majority of writings we have from the time support one another. It is not so much about looking at the witness of a given author, as it is looking at the witness of the church of the time.

Excellent!

Many different Anabaptist sects under one heading

Legend 3/17/05

It means 'yellow dog'

Legend 3/17/05

It means 'yellow dog'

Legend 3/17/05

It means 'yellow dog'

Legend 3/17/05

It means 'yellow dog'

Warning -- Anabaptist views

It means 'yellow dog'

Warning -- Anabaptist views

It means 'yellow dog'

Warning -- Anabaptist views

It means 'yellow dog'

Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Warning -- Anabaptist views

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

It means 'yellow dog'

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency