The ones that don't see the body of Christ as universal-
they see it as a congregation or assembly
with the family of God as universal
why aren't they included in the definition of ana-baptists?
cos these guys have been around since at least A.D 100!
You know what, I just saw the sticky thread & started a thread asking if we should clean up our stickies. I had not realized we had a locked thread that seemed to give an exclusive definition.
Now I think I actually misunderstood the purpose of this thread (again, I'm sorry nzguy) and thought someone wanted to
narrow the definition of Anabaptist to include only the Trail of Blood folks. Now that I see what's in the thread, I completely agree that we should
broaden what's in the sticky to include Friends and other similar denominations. I am so sorry you read it and felt excluded. My reading of your post was colored by past efforts by others to exclude. I want to be more welcoming.
Now that the Admins who locked us up in this ghetto are gone, can we open the doors? I know Joykins was quite saddened to be told by TPTB that Christians & Missionary Alliance didn't belong here or in the Baptist forum, which left her homeless. The Calvinist admins thought CMA should be either Wesleyan or Charismatic, but since CM&A don't baptize infants and don't speak in tongues, neither of these groups was the right fit. Why not fling open our doors to them now?
The Scandinavian free churches also have a lot in common with us, and some of the Evangelical Covenant CF members have made this forum their home. The Evangelical Free Church falls in this category, too. Although not historical peace churches, they do have roots in the Radical Reformation, like the Anabaptists.
Is there really anyone here who wants to exclude people from this forum and make it a very narrow group?
Let's talk about this some more.