would you call ana-baptists a denomination?

[nzguy]

See I don't know if I would.. seeing as most ana-baptists are in independent christian churches that don't let wider organsiational church or governmental bodies have control over them.

But then as is the case with Mennonites.. they are a universal church movement.. in which case the word denomination probably fits.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

 

[MrJim]

Denominations such as Church of the Brethren and Brethren in Christ are considered anabaptist, along with some of the Conservative Mennonite groups not affiliated with MennoniteUSA.

It's a lot like the baptists and lutherans etc, loosely gathered they share a similar name, but there is division/separation when more closely examined...

 

[WayneinMaine]

As you are using the term, Ana-baptists would refer to Landmark or other Fundamental Baptist churches (denominations) who believe that they trace their history to the first church (by way of a number of re-baptizing sects) in a manner described in the book "Trail of Blood". As such they really are a Protestant denomination, even if they are independent.

Anabaptist (no hyphen) would refer to a movement that came out of the Reformation that was neither Catholic nor Protestant, though the churches it spawned are frequently considered Protestant denominations -Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite (very un-Protestant).

 

[nzguy]

Protestant? The were never part of the protestant reformation.. they were doing their own thing.. they did choose to have non-fellowship with St Augustine when the he was uniting christians under the universal church banner.. but they never had to protest against Catholicism in the way that Protestants did since they were always seperate.

Also.. people like to call these churches that re-baptised tracing themselves back to JEsus and His disciples as 'sects' but the fact is there are books that tease out the history in the Trail of Blood much more.. giving it historically sound basis.

Anyway.. I know people here get upity with Trail of Blood heritage people because they have tried to NARROW the definition of ana-baptists down to only non-universal church people.. I don't care for doing that..

I just think the word denomination belongs to a universal church movement..

where most independent baptist churches would never consider themselves part of a denomination.. only a heritage.

 

[WayneinMaine]

...but the fact is there are books that tease out the history in the Trail of Blood much more.. giving it historically sound basis.

Go on... I would like to know of some credible historians (who have not been credibley refuted) that can trace this unique "true church" called ana-babptist to the first disciples, while at the same time avoiding the "Anabaptists" and the Reformed, Protestant and Roman traditions.

 

[nzguy]

okay.. well with the historical records of these churches.. they don't have a continuous flow from Jesus and His disciples to now.. partly because churches aren't always trying to records themselives in history.. but mainly because the records of them were destroyed by Protestant and Catholic churches.

They do pop up in history.. going right back... but intermittently. Where do you suppose the American Baptist Assocation churches trace their lineage?

there are many many churches in this association.. and I think to say that there historical basis isn't that sound or not credible is not quite right.

Besides or that historical stuff..

I do know from scripture that the body of Christ is an ecclessia.. an assembly or congregation.

the universal part is the kingdom of God or the family of God.

when we speak of 'the church' what do we mean?

if you say 'the dog' is man's best friend.. it isn't the universal dog
if you say 'the bar' - this would mean not the universal bar.. but the bar down the road
if you say the body of water- this is a lake or pool.. in a locality.. not a universal pool or lake

have a look at the Greek New Testament-

every time we see the English word 'church' it is the Greek word 'ecclessia', which is a congregation or assembly

then you have a look at the book of Ephesians..

all the analogies of the body of Christ there are of a filty framed together.. tightly knit etc.. congregation

it is an example of unity in a congregation

so the body of Christ.. like 'the body of water' refers to a local gathering or assembly.

then you look at the book of Corinth.. Paul says- you are the body of Christ.. this is to the church at Corinth.. so the church at Corinth is the body of Christ in that locality.

then if you look at the Greek New Testament again (which the English translations are based on) there is no definite article in front of 'ecclessia' so no THE..

this means it could read 'a body of Christ' or just 'body of Christ'

the language is figurative .. not a literal body of Christ.

so this teaching... this is what can be traced right back.. this is the group of christians that declared non-fellowship with Augustine.. who believed in the body of Christ as a congregation or assembly.

So the point is.. even if historically it is hard to find these churches... their teaching of the body of Christ being an assembly or congregation has been around since before Augustine.

anyway.. enough justifying... we can agree to disagree

 

[Crazy Liz]

I can understand your biblical arguments from Paul. It makes sense because the writings of his that have been preserved are letters to particular local churches, plus a few letters to individuals, so it would make sense that most of the time he would use the word in that way. Off the top of my head, the only exception that comes to mind right now is calling the church the Bride of Christ. How many brides does Christ have?

But also I would think we'd want to take a look at how Jesus used the word. The gospels only record Jesus using the word twice. In Matthew 18:17, he uses it in the way you describe. I think all Anabaptists would say this context indicates an assembly, not a hierarchy. However, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus says he will build his church. In Greek the word is singular, with a definite article.

 

[Crazy Liz]

More importantly, after all this discussion of words, I'd like to understand why your church thinks it is so very important to make this distinction in vocabulary. What are the theological ramifications of using "church" and "body" to refer only to local groups and using "family" and "kingdom" to refer only to global entities?

 

[WayneinMaine]

Two words are translated "church" from the koine Greek, ekklesia, meaning more precisely "an assembly of the called out" and koinonia meaning more precisely "community". The early German Anabaptists were careful to distinguish between "Kirche" (church) and "gemeinde" (community).

 

[Crazy Liz]

Two words are translated "church" from the koine Greek, ekklesia, meaning more precisely "an assembly of the called out" and koinonia meaning more precisely "community". The early German Anabaptists were careful to distinguish between "Kirche" (church) and "gemeinde" (community).

In what ways did they think these two were different?

BTW, I haven't seen koinonia translated "church" in any English Bibles. It is usually translated "fellowship" or "communion," and occasionally "distribution," "administration" or something similar. IOW, most English translations treat koinonia as an activity, rather than as a group of people. Was koinonia sometimes translated Kirche in German Bibles?

 

[WayneinMaine]

In what ways did they think these two were different?

BTW, I haven't seen koinonia translated "church" in any English Bibles. It is usually translated "fellowship" or "communion," and occasionally "distribution," "administration" or something similar. IOW, most English translations treat koinonia as an activity, rather than as a group of people. Was koinonia sometimes translated Kirche in German Bibles?

You are right, I'm wrong on that point. I think though we tend to use the concept of "church" and "fellowship" interchangably, not seeing a distinction between ekklesia and koinonia. The Luther Bible uses "Gemeinde" for ekklesia and koinonia, but in reference to the institutional church, "Kirche" was commonly use by the Protestants and shunned by the Anabaptists.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I just googled up this article, which I think might provide some food for thought on this thread:

http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?438

 

[nzguy]

What do you call the Paulicians.. Monatists.. Waldenses.. Donatists?

These are the nick-names of people's in independent christain churches dating before the 16th century who were given the nickname anabaptists- or ana-baptists

The article doesn't go past th 16th century

As for the confession document.. I would have to read it.. but I guess it has every believer as the body of Christ?

the teaching I agree with is in my church website and in the American Baptist Association statement of faith.

Anyway... it is a pretty good piece of information.. like you guys don't get how ana-baptists I mean don't associate themselves with groups in univeral church movements.. I don't get how people calling themselves anabaptists don't go further back to Paulicians.. Waldenses.. Donatists.. Montanists.. Primitive Baptists, Independent Baptists?

My guess is because these ana-baptists you mean - from teh article aswell confirming it.. came out of the reformation as protestants.. then disassociated themselves.. whereas the above people in independent churches never associated themselves with either Catholicism or Protestantism.

But I think this has been pretty thrashed out.

I would like to continue in looking at the Greek words for church tho

that is cool

 

[WayneinMaine]

What do you call the Paulicians.. Monatists.. Waldenses.. Donatists?

Paulicians, Monatists, Waldenses, and Donatists.
I'm very familiar with the premise of "Trail of Blood", the idea that there was a sort of apostolic succession of independent free churches throughout the centuries. E. H. Broadbent wrote similary in "The Pilgram Church" (very popular with the Charity church movement). There was an earlier work by a reputable German theologian and historian, Gottfried Arnold which probably is the basis of the oher books.

I was, at one time, pretty enthusiastic about the premise until I started studying some of these movements in detail, and started reading other, more critical historical research. For one thing, all of these diferent groups were not united doctrinally, and some were in fact heretical. Some baptized infants, others denied the incarnation, others were Roman in all but submission to Rome.

These are the nick-names of people's in independent christain churches dating before the 16th century who were given the nickname anabaptists- or ana-baptists

Anabaptist was not a "nickname" before it was applied broadly to the movements that were separate from the Protestants and Catholics during the Reformation. It was a legal charge under the Code of Justinian. Being rebaptized of rebaptizing someone was punishable by death. The 16th century "Anabaptists" denied the charge against them, not recognizing infant baptism as baptism -they were in fact called "täufer" by some -Baptists, Brethren amopng each other. but the name "Anabaptist" stuck among historians as a way of identifying collectively the movements that started from the first rebaptisms in Zurich in 1625.

As for the confession document.. I would have to read it.. but I guess it has every believer as the body of Christ?

It doesn't mention anything of the sort. You can read it here: http://www.anabaptistvision.org/Confessions/schleitheim/index.htm. You should put that universal church stuff aside and actually read what the 16th century Anabpatist had to say about themselves and about following after Jesus.

the teaching I agree with is in my church website and in the American Baptist Association statement of faith.

If your church is part of an unbroken succession of indepenent baptist churches tracing its lineage through the 16th century Swiss Anabaptists and back to the apostles, then you opught, perhaps, to agree with your church's predecessors who wrote the Schleitheim confession of faith.

Anyway... it is a pretty good piece of information.. like you guys don't get how ana-baptists I mean don't associate themselves with groups in univeral church movements.. I don't get how people calling themselves anabaptists don't go further back to Paulicians.. Waldenses.. Donatists.. Montanists.. Primitive Baptists, Independent Baptists?

I for one would not consider all of those groups kindred in belief. But I have studied the groups, even reading their own confessions and doctrinal statements not just books claiming they are Baptists.

My guess is because these ana-baptists you mean - from teh article aswell confirming it.. came out of the reformation as protestants.. then disassociated themselves.. whereas the above people in independent churches never associated themselves with either Catholicism or Protestantism.

From the "Trail of Blood":
"At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to re-baptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned."

Though Carroll glosses over most of the events surrounding the Anabpatists on the continent in the 16th century, these were the Anabaptists he would like us to believe were the predecessors of the modern Baptists -there were no others, and it is a worthy study to learn what they believed and practiced so that one is not in the position of inventing doctrine and history to suit one's beliefs.

 

[WayneinMaine]

I just googled up this article, which I think might provide some food for thought on this thread:

http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?438

That is an interesting article. "Anabaptist" is a lable that has stuck for the movement that lead to the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites. Things would not be nearly so confusing, even on this forum, if the label "Disciples" or "Followers of Jesus" or "Christocentrics" or even "Brethren" could have stuck instead. The article brings out, again, the characteristics of "Anabaptism" which go way beyond when and how someone is immersed (or sprinkled) ceremonially with water.

 

[Crazy Liz]

That is an interesting article. "Anabaptist" is a lable that has stuck for the movement that lead to the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites. Things would not be nearly so confusing, even on this forum, if the label "Disciples" or "Followers of Jesus" or "Christocentrics" or even "Brethren" could have stuck instead. The article brings out, again, the characteristics of "Anabaptism" which go way beyond when and how someone is immersed (or sprinkled) ceremonially with water.

It is ironic that the members of this forum did not name it. The name was picked for us by the Baptists and the Admins they persuaded to kick us out of the old Baptist/Anabaptist forum. So even on this forum a name has stuck that we didn't choose, but as a label created by those who expelled us.

The name also does not describe us well because not all of us come from Anabaptist traditions. This is also the home Congregation for Friends (Quakers) and for other free churches with roots in the radical reformation, like the Evangelical Covenant and Evangelical Free. Basically, if you don't baptize babies and you're not Baptist, Non-Denom, Restoration Movement or Charismatic, I think, although the CMA were told by TPTB at the time that they didn't belong here.

It's confusing, but this forum basically belongs to most but not all of the people the Baptists expelled from the old Baptist/Anabaptist forum. Like our Anabaptist ancestors, our label was given to us by those who didn't want us, rather than self-chosen.

 

[WayneinMaine]

It is ironic that the members of this forum did not name it. ...
The name also does not describe us well because not all of us come from Anabaptist traditions...

If I recall, the issue of concern was Christian pacifism. The group could have been named "Peace Churches", as in "Historic Peace Churches". That would have defined the group better since, as you say, some folks under "Anabaptist" are not historically anabapatist at all, nor do some have much, if anything, in common with other groups in this subforum. A "Trail of Blood" Baptist is a Baptist, not a part of a Historic Peace church in common with Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, etc.) and Quakers. At the same time too, "Anabpatists" as in Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are, at best, under-represented on this forum (certainly conservative and Old Order ones).

What's the likelihood of changing the name/designation of the group?

 

[Crazy Liz]

If I recall, the issue of concern was Christian pacifism. The group could have been named "Peace Churches", as in "Historic Peace Churches". That would have defined the group better since, as you say, some folks under "Anabaptist" are not historically anabapatist at all, nor do some have much, if anything, in common with other groups in this subforum. A "Trail of Blood" Baptist is a Baptist, not a part of a Historic Peace church in common with Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, etc.) and Quakers. At the same time too, "Anabpatists" as in Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites are, at best, under-represented on this forum (certainly conservative and Old Order ones).

What's the likelihood of changing the name/designation of the group?

I think if we reached a consensus among ourselves, we could get a staff member to change the name to conform to our consensus. The other day I suggested the name Anabaptists and Friends (pun intended). Or maybe Friends and Brethren? Or even Pilgrims and Strangers?

Maybe it's time to start another thread on renaming the forum. My only request is that we try not to be hasty. There are a lot of people who visit here repeatedly, but not daily or even weekly. Let's allow enough time to come to a real consensus with as much participation as possible.

 

[nzguy]

the way of peace in sharing the gospel is something that is very biblical and what churches in the ABA and my church do.

It is where we don't fight, destroy and hurt, but we associate with pre-christians, befriend them and share the love of Christ to them (ideally).

If they don't want to hear about Christ and reject the free gift of salvation.. then we would say okay.. no problem.. we would not force it any further because that would be disrespecting their freedom to choose.

 

[nzguy]

I've also been looking up Paulicians on the internet.. (not the best source) but so far the people caling them sects are from the Catholic church

one thing that the Paulicians did-- calling Mary just an ordinary lady... nothing 'sect' about that

called 'dualistic'- why? because they believe that Satan as pretty much taken control of the world and God is in the heavenlies.. well that is pretty much biblical!

Sin coming into the world.. the degradation of morals.. etc.. that is Satan's work and biblically sound..

God being the opposite power.. being in the heavenlys... well that is biblical.. although He is also inside every believer who asks Jesus into their lives..

then not allowing people to worship the cross.. well that is biblically souond.. since the cross is just wood.. and Jesus is the object of worship

saying that Jesus is supernatural and sent from God.. well that is biblically sound

opposing baptism.. sacraments.. that is biblically sound since they did do those thigns.. but not in the Catholic way, which is definitely not biblically sound

Anyway.. this is from a Catholic source.. another couple of sources were painting them as a sect.. and as 'nostics'.. yet the belief in Jesus as supernatural and from God.. that is not necessarily nostic... that is biblical

a nostic would say Jesus is not supernatural, or at least not the biblical kind of Jesus

"The distinctive character of the doctrine of the Paulicians was the rejection of the worship of the Virgin Mary, the saints, and the cross, the denial of the material presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the assertion of a right freely to search the scriptures;" - Chamber's Encyclopedia

what is 'sect' like about that?

I also found this quote-

If we may believe what their enemies have written concerning them, it is admitted that they held to some erroneous notions, but we can but admire their zeal in opposing the Catholic church, which had become so basely corrupt during this period as to beggar description. It is very strange that Protestant historians, who denounce the Roman Catholic Church as being manifestly anti-christ, the "Man of Sin," and the "Son of Perdition," and who teach that there has ever been those who dissented from her evil practices since the second century and would have no communion with her, are so presumptuous as to trace the history of the church of Christ through her line of descent and thus acknowledge her to be the church of Christ from the time of the first division down to the Reformation of the sixteenth century - a period of thirteen hundred years! How very absurd! The question arises at once, Why do they thus plunge into the absurdity of self-contradiction?

excerpt from Elder John R. Daily, Primitive Monitor, pp. 366-369.

http://www.carthage.lib.il.us/community/churches/primbap/Paulicians.html


and this quote -

Turning to the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians we find that they made constant use of the Old and New Testaments. They had no orders in the clergy as distinguished from laymen by their modes of living, their dress, or other things; they had no councils or similar institutions. Their teachers were of equal rank. They strove diligently for the simplicity of the apostolic life. They opposed all image worship which was practiced in the Roman Catholic Church. The miraculous relics were a heap of bones and ashes, destitute of life and of virtue. They held to the orthodox view of the Trinity; and to the human nature and substantial sufferings of the Son of God.
Baptist views prevailed among the Paulicians. They held that men must repent and believe, and then at a mature age ask for baptism, which alone admitted them into the church. "It is evident," observes Mosheim, "they rejected the baptism of infants." They baptized and rebaptized by immersion. They would have been taken for downright Anabaptists (Allix, The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont. Oxford, 1821).

http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1/history_04.htm


You have to remember that most of the historical reporting of Paulicians is from those that persecuted and from the Catholic Church which is far from being called a good authority on the matter.

Anyways... this will definitely be my last post on the matter... this is a never ending circle