Question of doctrine?

[intheway]

What should a conservative Anabaptist do who still holds to all of the fundamentals but.. is coming to the belief of the real presence in the Eucharist? And believe me I have been praying about this one for years.

still, in the way

 

[MrJim]

Well hello brother! I have been on the same journey. I'm surrounded by Catholic and Orthodox books on this subject. I've got to corral the kidlets and get to church-I'll respond further when I return.

...umm, how conservative are ya?

 

[LittleladyinChrist]

You know what for me to be a Fundamentalist means trying to hold to the whole word of God. Which includes these verses:

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

__________________________________

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them

_____________________________________

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

___________________________________

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

----------------------------------------------------

If we are separate we will not be thrown around with every wind of doctrine. A little leven leveneth the whole lump. Hope this has made sense but with absolute clarity I can tell you from my own experience, whatever that is worth to you, that the eucharist and the Catholic Church is not something you should be coming side and side with and fellowshipping with. Shalom,

--Alicia

 

[MrJim]

An understanding of presence in communion does not require one to become Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican or Lutheran.

However, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have been at this a lot longer than the local mennonite & baptist congregations, so I go there for more understanding. Eucharist is not a word to fear-even the early church guys used the word.

...more later.

 

[intheway]

Well hello brother! I have been on the same journey. I'm surrounded by Catholic and Orthodox books on this subject. I've got to corral the kidlets and get to church-I'll respond further when I return.

...umm, how conservative are ya?

Well this is a tough question in Anabaptist circles. To an Amish I am extremely liberal and worldly, as I sit here typing at my computer. To a member of the Mennonite Church USA, I am extremely conservative and many would call me legalist, because I am a fundamentalist, and believe we are to do what Jesus and his Apostles said to do. To many others it would vary, depending on which group.
Anabaptists aside, most Christians say I am very (too) conservative. When I abandoned my mainstream evangelical beliefs and embraced Anabaptist views, I was called a heretic, and, sadly, lost many of my friends.
If I was to embrace other views, I would likely be placed under the ban, in one way or another.

 

[MrJim]

Well this is a tough question in Anabaptist circles. To an Amish I am extremely liberal and worldly, as I sit here typing at my computer. To a member of the Mennonite Church USA, I am extremely conservative and many would call me legalist, because I am a fundamentalist, and believe we are to do what Jesus and his Apostles said to do. To many others it would vary, depending on which group.
Anabaptists aside, most Christians say I am very (too) conservative. When I abandoned my mainstream evangelical beliefs and embraced Anabaptist views, I was called a heretic, and, sadly, lost many of my friends.
If I was to embrace other views, I would likely be placed under the ban, in one way or another.

Sounds like you are walking a very narrow path. What pointed you toward presence in the Communion?

 

[intheway]

If we are separate we will not be thrown around with every wind of doctrine. A little leven leveneth the whole lump. Hope this has made sense but with absolute clarity I can tell you from my own experience, whatever that is worth to you, that the eucharist and the Catholic Church is not something you should be coming side and side with and fellowshipping with. Shalom,

--Alicia

Sister, I am agreement and very familiar with all of the Scripture you have quoted. I believe that to be so. And I agree with most of what you have said. The question for me is not a matter of another Gospel. It is this: What is the faith that was handed down " Once delivered"?

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

As with most scripture it is a matter of interpretation. I am trying to discern what that is.


Your Brother in Christ Jesus, In The Way

 

[MrJim]

You know what for me to be a Fundamentalist means trying to hold to the whole word of God. Which includes these verses:

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

__________________________________

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them

_____________________________________

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

___________________________________

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

----------------------------------------------------

If we are separate we will not be thrown around with every wind of doctrine. A little leven leveneth the whole lump. Hope this has made sense but with absolute clarity I can tell you from my own experience, whatever that is worth to you, that the eucharist and the Catholic Church is not something you should be coming side and side with and fellowshipping with. Shalom,

--Alicia

All denominations and church groups have been guilty of these offenses over the centuries...don't think the Catholic church is something alone is having these sort of issues.

Another Gospel? I heard a Reformed/Presbyterian preacher paint everyone that wasn't calvinist as believing another gospel

 

[intheway]

Sounds like you are walking a very narrow path. What pointed you toward presence in the Communion?

To be honest, from when I was first saved, I always felt that Christ was somehow present (which He is, in some way) whenever I did communion. Now I was only 17, I had no idea what any of it meant.
I did not really know what I believed. Then ,I was taught, By Pentecostal Evangelicals, that it was all purely symbolic.
Okay, no problem. I was also taught that I know had eternal security, and although it was important to follow the Bible, there was no way I could ever turn away, or be lost. So I went through twenty years of very superficial, very worldly Christianity. Not trying to find a Church that taught truth, but the most liberal Churches, that taught any thing goes, to match my lifestyle.
To cut a long story short, when my world finally started crashing down around me, I started reading my Bible. What I found was that what I was being taught and what I believed, did not always match up with the Scripture.
Many times, when I questioned what my Pastor said, I had the response; "well it says that, but it means this". So I became a seeker. I went to many many many different protestant Churches. They all had the same problems. So I dropped out. I started doing home Church and embraced the home church movement. I found the same problems, only now, with different people in their homes.
One fellow, however, had come out of Anabaptist Churches, and although he did not embrace that, I did.
I found that on so many levels, what the Bible said is what the conservative Anabaptists not only believed, but lived out as well.
So, I started to study, talk to and meet with, the different Anabaptist groups. What I found was an extremely wide range. From the most liberal groups (Quakers that did not even believe in the divinity of Jesus, Mennonites that were more liberal than most protestants, ordaining practicing homosexuals and such) to the most conservative( Beachy Amish that said I was only welcome in services, if I learned to speak high German first).
So I found a middle ground.

Then I started to study the early Anabaptist writings and the Ante Nicene writings and how they compared to the scripture. I also studied textual types to see what the most accurate English translations of the original autographs were. And started to study Greek and Hebrew. Many of the things I learned helped me immensely, but many of the bothered me.
As far as the Anabaptist movement is concerned, let me just say this. As with most movements of God, the first People that started out had an immense love of the truth and of God that they literally laid down their lives for Jesus. As time went on, in far too many groups and ways, it became less about being a follower of Jesus and more about being a follower of Anabaptism. I do not blame those who lost the original fervor, it seems to happen in every movement.

Well sorry to be so long winded, but I feel it is important to understand where I have come from, to see where I am going.

I am still seeking truth. If I am wrong on these points I pray that God would bring me into the light. Well, lets get back to my current, and greatest dilemma.

One of the things I have a hard time with is this: The early Church (Ante-Nicene writings) seem to have held to some form of real presence. East and West. I have not found any clear evidence that they believed any other view. In fact, the Gnostics appear to be the only ones that held to an opposing viewpoint.

To be clear, I do not believe that what the Ante Nicene writers embraced was what the Roman Catholics call Transubstantiation.
Nor What the Orthodox embrace. Nor did they believe it was purely symbolic. But somewhere in the middle. I do not know who is correct.
One thing I have found, is that in many ways what often occurred in the church was that things changed over time. In reading the writings of the early Church, they did not go from point A to point B overnight. You can actually see how things changed over the course of years. When the Reformation occurred, they often went opposite of what the Roman Church did , realizing that what the Roman Church had embraced was wrong. (and Men tend then to go the other way). Instead, perhaps they should have tried to find out where the corruption had come in. And what the early Church really held to. Perhaps that is still the case.
In addition, I have a hard time believing that for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Church was wrong on this.
I think there may be more to it than meets the eye. Of course, I could be wrong.

I am not currently considering Roman Catholicism or the Orthodox Churches. I Have studied them both quite a bit, and have MANY theological and doctrinal differences.

As I said, I continue to hold to most of the tenants of Anabaptism. Non-Resistance, The Two Kingdoms, and most of the tenants of the Schleitheim confession.
There are just a few things that do not line up for me. This is one of those issues. I know, it is a major issue. I am not taking this issue lightly, nor is this a quick decision. I have been at this topic for years. That is why I am here.



I am very interested in your opinions on this.



Your Brother in Christ Jesus, In The Way

 

[ZiSunka]

Christ is present every time three people are gathered in his name. He is definitely present at communion.

To believe that he is present in the elements of the communion is unorthodox from an anabaptist perspective.

However, in this modern world of picking and choosing what to believe, it doesn't surprise me one bit that a person might choose to believe that the wine and bread are actual blood and flesh. It's something you should discuss with your pastor.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that God will penalize you in any way for believing something different from traditional Anabaptist doctrine. My mom was a Catholic and God seemed to bless her and love her just as much as anyone else. I think human beings are more hung up on this that God probably is.

 

[LittleladyinChrist]

All denominations and church groups have been guilty of these offenses over the centuries...don't think the Catholic church is something alone is having these sort of issues.

Another Gospel? I heard a Reformed/Presbyterian preacher paint everyone that wasn't calvinist as believing another gospel

That is really sad that an evangelical would say that. You know if someone were to say that you are to reject him as well. That is obviously a false statement, but that doesnt mean still that we are to join hands with a denomination who has a false gospel, or read their material for spiritual direction. Of coarse you are going to be confused and be tossed about with doctrines. I wouldnt read something from the Catholic Church ever for my spiritual growth. God says to be separate and let them be accursed. Based on that they preach another Gospel, which I pray you know they do.

 

[LittleladyinChrist]

p.s. A false gospel, is a belief in works for salvation. A real gospel is by faith alone in Jesus Christs blood atonement for your sin. All else falls under works based salvation which is a false Gospel

 

[ZiSunka]

What does belief that Christ is present in the communion have to do with a "works-based" salvation?

 

[MrJim]

p.s. A false gospel, is a belief in works for salvation. A real gospel is by faith alone in Jesus Christs blood atonement for your sin. All else falls under works based salvation which is a false Gospel

You sound a bit calvinist here. Are you an eternal security believer?

Works plays a big role in our Christian life--I understand, as has historical anabaptists, that our security in Christ is a covenant that requires obedience on our part...call it works if you like. Faithful love-obedience, as it's been best described.

 

[MrJim]

One of the things I have a hard time with is this: The early Church (Ante-Nicene writings) seem to have held to some form of real presence. East and West. I have not found any clear evidence that they believed any other view. In fact, the Gnostics appear to be the only ones that held to an opposing viewpoint.

To be clear, I do not believe that what the Ante Nicene writers embraced was what the Roman Catholics call Transubstantiation.
Nor What the Orthodox embrace. Nor did they believe it was purely symbolic. But somewhere in the middle. I do not know who is correct.

Your Brother in Christ Jesus, In The Way

Yeah, here is what I'm gettin' at. To say that the Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox have the correct interpretation may be where we go wrong. I suspect that Christ is present in a way that is only touched on by these other traditions. Perhaps the "elements" do not have to be "consecrated" by clergy to be effective. Perhaps the elements, regardless of whatever group of believers are receiving, are sanctified in this way, and always have been. I bet there is more mystery here than we understand.

At communion, when I am holding the bread or the cup, I simply say to myself, or repeat after the minister-who often uses these words, "This is my body" and "This is my blood". I don't think it really has to be anymore complicated than that.

In reading about the communion in the scriptures it's always presented in a meal sense, so maybe the way that the Church of the Brethren does it, not so much in the "bread & cup" churchy way, but in the fellowship of love in breaking bread together-that the presence of Christ is then known.

Hope I explained myself ok...

 

[intheway]

Yeah, here is what I'm gettin' at. To say that the Catholic or Lutheran or Orthodox have the correct interpretation may be where we go wrong. I suspect that Christ is present in a way that is only touched on by these other traditions. Perhaps the "elements" do not have to be "consecrated" by clergy to be effective. Perhaps the elements, regardless of whatever group of believers are receiving, are sanctified in this way, and always have been. I bet there is more mystery here than we understand.

At communion, when I am holding the bread or the cup, I simply say to myself, or repeat after the minister-who often uses these words, "This is my body" and "This is my blood". I don't think it really has to be anymore complicated than that.

In reading about the communion in the scriptures it's always presented in a meal sense, so maybe the way that the Church of the Brethren does it, not so much in the "bread & cup" churchy way, but in the fellowship of love in breaking bread together-that the presence of Christ is then known.

Hope I explained myself ok...

You explained it quite well and I agree with you fully on this.

 

[MrJim]

You explained it quite well and I agree with you fully on this.

The more folks I talk with, even among the baptists I worship with, the more I find that tend to agree that there is something more than just a memorial.

But I was told by one wiser than me, that the memorial aspect of it isn't to be downplayed-that there is power in receiving, knowing that millions of others are receiving, doing as Jesus said, in remembrance of me-Thanks to ZiSunka-I still remember that conversation.

 

[ZiSunka]

It's a foreshadowing of the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, too, and that's a powerful thing.

Some who used to be a priest once told me--"Food is love, that's why God presented himself as food." You don't feed someone you feel indifferent about, you feed the people you love. Communion is the memorial of his love, not just his death on the cross. Every time you take communion, you are saying, "Yes, I see the love of God in this bread and this wine."

Everytime you take communion, you are experiencing God's love the same way all Christians through every generation past and every generation to come will experience it. That is the power in the cup.

 

[CelticRose]

Wow! I've never hear communion described like that before. Powerful stuff.

 

[intheway]

That is obviously a false statement, but that doesnt mean still that we are to join hands with a denomination who has a false gospel, or read their material for spiritual direction. Of coarse you are going to be confused and be tossed about with doctrines. I wouldnt read something from the Catholic Church ever for my spiritual growth. God says to be separate and let them be accursed. Based on that they preach another Gospel, which I pray you know they do.[/quote]

First off, let me just say that I am not trying to judge you, just understand where you are coming from. I fully understand your caution in regard to the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) but I am a bit perplexed by this. I have heard many Anabaptists make similar comments (not singling you out, many others in other denominations as well). And I have stated almost exactly the same thing as well in the past, and may well again in the future. That said...

Do you believe that there are people in the RCC who actually have a loving relationship with Jesus Christ. If so, are they your Brothers/Sisters in Christ? Are they not part of the same body?

Do you consider yourself in fellowship or joined with all Anabaptists, or just your denomination of Anabaptists?, or just your Church?

Should we, as Christians, accept all of those whom God accepts as his?and if so, how are we to make that judgment?
In Peace, ITW