Many different Anabaptist sects under one heading

[ZiSunka]

The term anabaptist covers a great multitude of sects, like the mennonites, the amish, the brethren, and others.

What anabaptist groups are represented here?

I am Mennonite USA. I was Mennonite Church, and I voted against the merger with General Conference because I felt many of their teachings were too worldly, just so you know.

Here is our statement of faith:
http://www.mcusa-archives.org/library/resolutions/1995/1995summary.html

What about you all?

[Danfrey]

I identify most with Anabaptists, but I would claim Primitive Christianity. When a biblical principle has taken on multiple interpretations, I will look to the early church to see how they felt about the issue. I have been a member of the Franconia Conference which is Mennonite USA, but feel they have strayed way to far from historic Anabpatism, I was a member of the Holdeman Church, but couldn't live with the "One true church" doctrine. One of the Anabaptist churches that I appreciate the most is the Charity Church.

I currently attend home based meetings.

[theAmishGirl]

I identify most with Anabaptists, but I would claim Primitive Christianity. When a biblical principle has taken on multiple interpretations, I will look to the early church to see how they felt about the issue. I have been a member of the Franconia Conference which is Mennonite USA, but feel they have strayed way to far from historic Anabpatism, I was a member of the Holdeman Church, but couldn't live with the "One true church" doctrine. One of the Anabaptist churches that I appreciate the most is the Charity Church.

I currently attend home based meetings.
Conservative Mennonite (unaffliated with the Conservative Mennonite Conference)

[AmishBoy]

Conservative mennonite

[ZiSunka]

Can you all post your church's statement of faith or your home chiurch's statement of faith if you have one?

That way we can all see what we have in common and some differences we can discuss! :)

[theAmishGirl]

Can you all post your church's statement of faith or your home chiurch's statement of faith if you have one?

That way we can all see what we have in common and some differences we can discuss! :)
I don't have a mainstream church but I agree most commonly with the S confession (I call it that because I can't spell it right...

http://www.bibleviews.com/Schleitheim.html#four

[kiwimac]

Quaker -- We don't have statements of faith!

[Danfrey]

Our statement of faith goes kind of like this....

article 1 - Matthew
article 2 - Mark
article 3 - Luke
etc.etc.

We hold to the New Testament as our only statement of faith. When there are differnences of opinion on what a given scripture means, we look at what the early church had to say about it.

[ZiSunka]

Our statement of faith goes kind of like this....

article 1 - Matthew
article 2 - Mark
article 3 - Luke
etc.etc.

We hold to the New Testament as our only statement of faith. When there are differnences of opinion on what a given scripture means, we look at what the early church had to say about it.

How early?

[Joykins]

I was raised Grace Brethren (http://www.fgbc.org/). It's not a typical Anabaptist church in that it doesn't have a peace position. In fact there were a lot of serving military members in that church. I actually arrived on a peace position of my own when I had my first child.

[ZiSunka]

oops

[MrJim]

The last time I was a member of any denom it was the old Mennonite Church (that which merged with the General Conference), Franklin Conference.

Confession would be the same as LL's.

[Danfrey]

How early?

When I refer to the early church I am talking about the Church prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Writers such as, Clement of Alexander, Justin Martyr, Ireanaes, Tertullian's works prior to joining the Montanists.

[MrJim]

When I refer to the early church I am talking about the Church prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Writers such as, Clement of Alexander, Justin Martyr, Ireanaes, Tertullian's works prior to joining the Montanists.

ante-nicene--, ya know, they are popular amongst the catholics too-especially Irenaeus.

Dan-do you have a preference of the anabaptist writers--Menno Simons, Peter Rideman, Pilgram Marpeck, Balthasar Hubmaier?

[Danfrey]

The only one I have read much from is Michael Sattler. I have also read a bit in the Martyr's Mirror.

[ZiSunka]

When I refer to the early church I am talking about the Church prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Writers such as, Clement of Alexander, Justin Martyr, Ireanaes, Tertullian's works prior to joining the Montanists.I have such a hard time getting past the facts that some of those men insisted that the earth is flat and that the phoenix is a real bird that I just don't know how to trust them about anything. :(Perhaps it's a spiritual flaw on my part, but if someone is genuinely divinely inspired, why wouldn't God set them straight about their errors?

[theAmishGirl]

Maybe because those things didn't really matter in the big picture...? If someone calls a dog by the name of a goat, but they realize that Christ is their Lord and Savior, does it really matter that they don't know what a dog is?

[Imblessed]

This seems to cover the basics pretty well......

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

Statement of Faith 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. 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:
(a) The Letter of George Fox to the Governor of Barbados in 1671.
(b) The Apology of Robert Barclay, written in Latin in 1676 and translated into English in 1678.
(c) The Richmond Declaration of Faith, adopted at a major conference of the Society of Friends in Richmond, Indiana, in 1887.
We believe:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.

[ZiSunka]

Maybe because those things didn't really matter in the big picture...? If someone calls a dog by the name of a goat, but they realize that Christ is their Lord and Savior, does it really matter that they don't know what a dog is?

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

[MrJim]

This seems to cover the basics pretty well......

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



Looks good to me-nothing jumped out at me as being unorthodox.

Think I could be a quaker under this confession....

[MrJim]

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

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

[ZiSunka]

:confused: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :cool:

Read and enjoy with my full blessings!

[Schroeder]

This seems to cover the basics pretty well......

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

Statement of Faith 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. 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:
(a) The Letter of George Fox to the Governor of Barbados in 1671.
(b) The Apology of Robert Barclay, written in Latin in 1676 and translated into English in 1678.
(c) The Richmond Declaration of Faith, adopted at a major conference of the Society of Friends in Richmond, Indiana, in 1887.
We believe:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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. hey i think i might fit into this one. that george Fox guy was a pretty cool dude. AMEN "sister"

[Antje]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thanks "brother"! :P

[ZiSunka]

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!

[ZiSunka]

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.


Not every early writer is necessarily an expert at the subject they are writing about, either. Several were heavily influenced by the Greek pagan culture of their time or by the teachings of Socrates, several were influenced by the middle eastern culture that included goddess worship, which is where some of the special veneration of Mary comes from, specifically the title Queen of Heaven, which was the title of a goddess who went by names such as Ashtoreth, Estarte and Eises. When using the early writers, one must take into consideration where they are coming from, since they were as influenced by their culture as we are by ours.

Sometimes people get the idea that the early writers were "pure," that is, having the best motives and not influenced by their culture or the desire to spread the religion, but they were as eager to count converts, gain power and assimilate into the culture as writers and preachers are today. I look at the early writers as the Rick Warrens and John MacArthurs of their day. Their writings make for interesting commentary, but should be taken with a grain of salt, just as you would if you were reading Andrew Murray.

[Danfrey]

I think I am ready to give them more than a grain of salt. You speak as if you are familiar with the writings of the early church, can you support the idea that the veneration of Mary came from them. Understand that when I speak of the early church I am speaking of the preconstantine church with much focus on the first two centuries. Once you get into the third and fourth centuries things started drifting rapidly.

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

[ZiSunka]

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

People die for the wrong things all the time. I don't put any stock in the idea that something must be the truth if people are willing to die for it. The 9-11 attackers thought they were dying for the truth.

[vespasia]

Have to agree with the discourse that things began to get seriously schwed in the C4th with the fall of the Roman Empire.
A whole society collapsed and took its good points along with its terrible.

Walkinhisfootsteps do you have any referances back to orgional source material that can be studied to see how you arrived at your conclusion that Mary is linked with pagan goddess rather than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times?

[ZiSunka]

Walkinhisfootsteps do you have any referances back to orgional source material that can be studied to see how you arrived at your conclusion that Mary is linked with pagan goddess rather than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times?

I didn't say mary was linked with pagan goddesses, I said that some early writers were influenced by pagan beliefs, including the belief in a goddess called Queen of Heaven who went by many names. Some of those early writers who recommended the special veneration of Mary may have been influenced by those beliefs.

than a woman who became associated with through ecclectic idealogy of more modern times

I have no idea what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it?

[ZiSunka]

I think I am ready to give them more than a grain of salt. You speak as if you are familiar with the writings of the early church, can you support the idea that the veneration of Mary came from them. Understand that when I speak of the early church I am speaking of the preconstantine church with much focus on the first two centuries. Once you get into the third and fourth centuries things started drifting rapidly.

I don't take anybody lightly who died for their faith.

Iraenus, Hippolytus and Gregory the Wonderworker, all second or third century writers, recommended that Mary be given special honors as "the Mother of God." Hippolytus originated the term "Mother of God" and said that to deny Mary this title is to deny the diety of Christ (217 AD). By the end of the second century, Mary was already being called the Queen of Heaven by Irenaeus (189 AD).

Justin Martyr said that Mary is the second Eve, just as Jesus is the second Adam, that Mary shares in the glory of Christ through her obedience. He said that disobedience came into the world through the virgin Eve, and the virgin Mary brought righteousness into the world through her perfect obedience. He wrote that in 155 AD.

The writings of the early church show that devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God developed at the same time as and along with the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the God-Man. By the beginning of the 4th century, when the tenants of orthodox Christianity were being worked out by the councils, there was no discussion that Mary might not be especially venerated, it was already part and parcel of the teachings of the early writers. By the beginning of the 4 century, "the fathers" had determined that anyone who refused to call Mary by the title was condemned.

Tatian the Syrian said that any Christian who refused to venerate Mary for the work of salvation she accomplished in the birth and raising of Jesus Christ could in no way consider himself to be a member of the body of Christ, the church. He coined the phrase "ark of the new covenant" to refer to Mary in 189 AD.

The Protoevangelium, a book of doctrine concerning Mary and the birth of Christ, which we call the Gospel of James, was used as a reference by the early writers and was well-established by Origen's time in 248 AD. In it, it is the origin of the "eternal purity" of Mary, stating that she was a virgin throughout her life. We now think of this book as heretical, but Origen accepted it as a valid writing of the church.

"By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain." Peter of Alexandria, 295 AD, explaining how Mary could be born sinless and live her whole life sinless. He also refers to Mary as "ever virgin" and says that this concept had been established by the earliest fathers of the church. Hippolytus refers to her as "ever-spotless" in 217 AD.

Good enough, or should I keep going?

[Danfrey]

Iraenus, Hippolytus and Gregory the Wonderworker, all second or third century writers, recommended that Mary be given special honors as "the Mother of God." Hippolytus originated the term "Mother of God" and said that to deny Mary this title is to deny the diety of Christ (217 AD). By the end of the second century, Mary was already being called the Queen of Heaven by Irenaeus (189 AD).

Justin Martyr said that Mary is the second Eve, just as Jesus is the second Adam, that Mary shares in the glory of Christ through her obedience. He said that disobedience came into the world through the virgin Eve, and the virgin Mary brought righteousness into the world through her perfect obedience. He wrote that in 155 AD.

The writings of the early church show that devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God developed at the same time as and along with the orthodox understanding of Jesus as the God-Man. By the beginning of the 4th century, when the tenants of orthodox Christianity were being worked out by the councils, there was no discussion that Mary might not be especially venerated, it was already part and parcel of the teachings of the early writers. By the beginning of the 4 century, "the fathers" had determined that anyone who refused to call Mary by the title was condemned.

Tatian the Syrian said that any Christian who refused to venerate Mary for the work of salvation she accomplished in the birth and raising of Jesus Christ could in no way consider himself to be a member of the body of Christ, the church. He coined the phrase "ark of the new covenant" to refer to Mary in 189 AD.

The Protoevangelium, a book of doctrine concerning Mary and the birth of Christ, which we call the Gospel of James, was used as a reference by the early writers and was well-established by Origen's time in 248 AD. In it, it is the origin of the "eternal purity" of Mary, stating that she was a virgin throughout her life. We now think of this book as heretical, but Origen accepted it as a valid writing of the church.

"By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain." Peter of Alexandria, 295 AD, explaining how Mary could be born sinless and live her whole life sinless. He also refers to Mary as "ever virgin" and says that this concept had been established by the earliest fathers of the church. Hippolytus refers to her as "ever-spotless" in 217 AD.

Good enough, or should I keep going?
Walkin,

Please support your statements with references to the original works. I have the 10 volume set and would like to look up the information and read it myself. I am not willing to comment on these claims without references to the primary sources.

[ZiSunka]

Walkin,

Please support your statements with references to the original works. I have the 10 volume set and would like to look up the information and read it myself. I am not willing to comment on these claims without references to the primary sources.

Ten volume set of what? Whose writings?

I can't reference your set unless you tell me what set it is.

[Danfrey]

The writings we are speaking of are contained in a ten volume set known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I assumed you were speaking of this set when you spoke of the writings of Justin Martyr and Ireaneus. They are also available at ccel.org. All you have to do is reference the title and chapter of the given work.

[ZiSunka]

The writings we are speaking of are contained in a ten volume set known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I assumed you were speaking of this set when you spoke of the writings of Justin Martyr and Ireaneus. They are also available at ccel.org. All you have to do is reference the title and chapter of the given work.

I don't have that set or any set. I have individual books and a computer program. It doesn't have titles for chapters.

[Danfrey]

I don't have that set or any set. I have individual books and a computer program. It doesn't have titles for chapters.
Are the individual books and computer program you have the writings from the original authors (translated of course) or are they writings about what the original authors wrote? Just give the name of work if you are unable to give a chapter. For example...

Clement of Alexandria - The Stromata

As long as the quote is close, I should be able to find it by searching the ccel.org

Like the Bible, it is easy for these writings to be taken out of context. Therefore it is good to reference them and get the whole picture of what they are saying.

Remember also, what I said about multiple authors. As these were only men, the value of their work comes when viewed together with other writers of the time. We are not looking for new doctrines here, only looking to see how the scriptures affected the lives of early Christians.

David Bercot often states that it is easy to sum up what the early church believed on a subject by gathering all that the New Testament has to say about the subject and take it very simply and literally.

Let me give an example of the value. There is a Christian myth about what the "eye of the needle" is. If you look at the early works, there is no reference to the eye of the needle being a small gate, passage way or any other creative things that pastors have come up with to minimize the teaching, yet many Christians will argue that the myth is fact.

[DanJudge]

Brothers/Sisters, I am sending 3 pages, which is One chapter of that "little book" of Revelation chapter 10.
There is alot of Prophecy in this chapter.
It address chapter 10, 11, 12, and 13, and more.
Please Print, Read, and Study.

Page 1 ---
BEHOLD LORD HERE ARE TWO SWORDS
To the chief musician; do not destroy; of David; a golden psalm.

1 Is it true that you speak in righteousness, O brood of rulers, or that you judge the children of men uprightly?
2 Certainly you work out in your hearts iniquitous acts to be performed in the earth and measure out the violence that your hands are to commit.
3 The wicked become alienated from truth when they leave the womb; the speakers of falsehood begin to err as soon as they have left the womb.
4 They have poison of the type of the poison of a serpent; they are like a deaf adder that has stopped up its own ears
5 That will not listen to the voice of charmers, of the wisest snake-handlers.
6 O God, break their teeth in their mouth! Break out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD!
7 Let them evaporate as water does while moving along; as they are directing their projectiles let them be as already cut off.
8 Let them become like a stream evaporating as it goes along; like the stillbirth of a woman let them not see the sun.
9 Before your thorns can even understand it, O thornbushes, whether young or old He shall cause a whirlwind to remove them all.
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked —
11 So that men shall say, "There certainly is a reward for the righteous! There certainly is a God who judges in the earth!" — Psalm 58

Whoever has ears, let him hear the voice of one who cries in the wilderness, and of One who has no place to lay down His head — "Every valley will be filled in, and every mountain and hill brought low; and what is warped will be straightened, and the uneven roads made smooth; and all flesh will see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:5-6) — for the sections of the Scripture that speak openly of revolution parallel and illuminate each other; and so the time of patience of James 5:7-12 during which the worst offense will be the swearing of any oath to avoid the swearing of an oath of allegiance to a new ruler is that of the Millennium to follow the fall of Babylon and the raising of the holy martyrs from the dead (that is those "shot," literally "killed by a flattening thump," of Revelation 20:4 during the course of the great world rising to come, and they shall be truly blessed, as in 14:13), that being the period to immediately precede the war of Gog and Magog, "the coming of the Lord" (James 5:8) and the descent of the new Jerusalem; and therefore James 5:1-6 in truth prophesies the fall of Babylon and applies the condemnation of the great city to the wealthy of the whole world in the same way in which we find the vision of the fall of Rome within Revelation 17:1-19:10 universalized and applied to the whole of the beast in 19:11-21 of the parallel unit 19:11-22:9, where the sword proceeding forth from the mouth of Christ in the Heavens symbolizes that same command of war that He gave to His saints in 18:6-7 to be responded to by the formation of His army, as in Psalm 110:3, "For Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day Your army is to form," and where the beast is clearly distinct from "the kings of the earth" and so represents the elitist elements of all the societies of these last days. Ancient Rome, the same as ancient Babylon, though occupied was never destroyed by a hostile army; but Babylon as used in Revelation
is a name of mystery, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5) and represents the wealthy of all lands (and see 12:9 and 13:7); and those are the children of the evil one to be uprooted from the field of the world by the messengers of the Son of Man, as in Matthew 13:41. These are human messengers and not angels (the Greek word in question can bear either meaning), though, because they cannot uproot the wicked in the initial stages without uprooting the righteous as well, a difficulty that would not exist for angels.

The Roman Empire was divided in two in 330 A.D. by the decree of Constantine the Great (the numerical equivalent of whose name written in Hebrew characters being 666) in fulfillment of Daniel 2:41, "the kingdom shall be divided," and the appearance of the distinct Western "Catholic" and Eastern "Orthodox" churches, the two horns like a lamb, though not the body, of the second beast of Revelation 13:11-18 (the mark in the right hand being the palm of Palm Sunday and that in the forehead the ashes of Ash Wednesday of the Catholic ritual) which is the composite false prophet — and surely we have heard it speak with the voice of the dragon and the hiss of the ancient serpent from time immemorial — also has its ultimate origin in this event. (The much later elitist-dominated Protestant bodies are, of course, subsumed within the Western unit; but these are all one in the last analysis, anyway. "I’m sorry, we’re not set up for that." "But for me, Father, what is your message for me?" "But for me, Reverend, what is your message for me?" "I’m sorry, we’re not set up for that. You’ll have to excuse me now." And he is to be excused to a fire whose fuel is kings and priests and all who were mighty and spent their days in comfort and honor and never knew hunger.) And so we find two years of blessing and hope specifically referred to in prophecy and both of them now centuries past. The first came 1290 years after the period of the Roman siege of Jerusalem --- end of page - 1

[ZiSunka]

Are the individual books and computer program you have the writings from the original authors (translated of course) or are they writings about what the original authors wrote? Just give the name of work if you are unable to give a chapter. For example...

Clement of Alexandria - The Stromata

As long as the quote is close, I should be able to find it by searching the ccel.org

Like the Bible, it is easy for these writings to be taken out of context. Therefore it is good to reference them and get the whole picture of what they are saying.

Remember also, what I said about multiple authors. As these were only men, the value of their work comes when viewed together with other writers of the time. We are not looking for new doctrines here, only looking to see how the scriptures affected the lives of early Christians.

David Bercot often states that it is easy to sum up what the early church believed on a subject by gathering all that the New Testament has to say about the subject and take it very simply and literally.

Let me give an example of the value. There is a Christian myth about what the "eye of the needle" is. If you look at the early works, there is no reference to the eye of the needle being a small gate, passage way or any other creative things that pastors have come up with to minimize the teaching, yet many Christians will argue that the myth is fact.

The program has the entire writings and I am NOT taking them out of context.

It took me over an hour to find all those quotes about Mary, I don't feel like doing it all over again right now.

I already know about the eye of the needle not being a gate. That myth was created in the 1970s when tourism in Israel was on the rise. It can be traced back the the particular tour guide who invented the story when he was talking to a particularly rich presbyterian tour group. The found the phrase offensive and asked him what the eye of the needle really meant and he made up the story, but after that, every rich presby church asked for this tour guide by name. It was a marketing ploy, that's all and it somehow got spread around until so many churches take it as the truth.

I don't particularly enjoy being preached to as if I were a little child opening the Bible for the first time, Dan. If you want to cling to the early writers as having inerrant knowledge, go for it. I offered you quotes from their writings that say otherwise and instead of looking them up, you make it seem like I've done something wrong. :(

Believe whatever pleases you about the inerrancy of the early writers. :sigh:

[Danfrey]

First, I have never claimed that the early writers were inerrant.

Second, when making claims as to what someone wrote, it is not unreasonable to expect references to the primary source. I am saying that I want to be able to read them in context before commenting on the statements you made.

As far as preaching at you like you are a child, this is not my intent. If I came across that way I appoligize.

[ZiSunka]

First, I have never claimed that the early writers were inerrant.

Second, when making claims as to what someone wrote, it is not unreasonable to expect references to the primary source. I am saying that I want to be able to read them in context before commenting on the statements you made.

As far as preaching at you like you are a child, this is not my intent. If I came across that way I appoligize.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have posted before I ate my dinner. :sorry:

It's going to take me a couple of days to reconstruct everything I posted with references to their original placement in the ancient writings. It's going to be one heck of a long post, if I have to post everything before and everything after those quotes, and I wonder if even that will satisfactory to you, since I believe you are so entrenched in your love of the early writers that you will still claim the quotes don't mean what they say. :(

I have a lot to do this weekend, but hopefully, I'll find time to make a satisfactory attempt at satisfying your demand.

You could just look them up yourself, you know, instead of placing the burden of your education on someone else. :D

[ZiSunka]

This should make it a lot easier for you Dan:

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/

This site can be searched by theme (such as Mary), and then it gives links to read the associated passages in context with reference numbers. :)

It should take you no time at all to be completely educated on the subject of Mary according to the early church writers.

[Danfrey]

This should make it a lot easier for you Dan:

http://www.earlychurchfathers.org/

This site can be searched by theme (such as Mary), and then it gives links to read the associated passages in context with reference numbers. :)

It should take you no time at all to be completely educated on the subject of Mary according to the early church writers.
It will take time to address these writers, so I will post serveral short posts over the next few days.

First of all, I would like to point out that the site you referenced has an agenda. It is a Catholic site intended to prove catholic doctrines. This is a dangerous starting point. The writings of these authors are available from an unbiased site that digitized the ten volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers published in 1885 and edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson.

Now, for the first writer. It is claimed that Ireaneas wrote that Mary participates in our salvation because she is the mother of God. Please read the following link to ccel.org. This is the reference given in regards to this claim. You will find that what Ireaneas is arguing is that Christ actually came in the flesh. He was discrediting the view that Jesus did not get his flesh from Mary. The writing has nothing to do with venerating Mary.
http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html

As far as the term Theokotos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos), please reference wikipedia to see that the first documented use of this term wasn't until the third century. The author to use it at that time was Origen, who is known to wonder into a sidebar of personal opinion at times in his writings. Thus, the importance of having multiple authors agree on a subject which I stated earlier. Origins works have to be approached cautiously. We can still learn much from him, but he didn't write intending them to become doctrine.

[ZiSunka]

Hmm...someone has an agenda all right.

It's going to be difficult to discuss this if you are going to simply put your opinion onto what the early writers wrote. As you said, you must refer to several sources, so consulting more than one commentary on the early writers would be in order. You say Irenaeus wasn't talking about honoring Mary, but other commentators with a lot more education and credentials than you say it does, and not just the catholic sites. If you can find five commentaries on Irenaeus's writings that say he was not refering to giving Mary special honors, then post them here and we can discuss their merits. I'm afriad just posting your say-so isn't good enough for a serious discussion.

Unless you just want to post your opinions, in which case, I'll just post mine, too.

[JimfromOhio]

I have been an Anabaptist for 20+ years and I am also into Reformed Theology. So, what do you call this? Grace Brethren Church is pretty much into Reformed Theology even though they don't acknowledge it or anything like that.

[ZiSunka]

As far as the term Theokotos, please reference wikipedia to see that the first documented use of this term wasn't until the third century.

The wickipedia is wrong. But since just about anyone can edit entries there, it's bound to be of questionable authority.

The writings of Hyppolytus were the first to contain the word Theokotos (Discourse on the End of the World, 217 AD)

But I'm not going to continue to debate you. You have your mind made up and nothing I do or say is going to change that. You have fallen victim to the idea that the old ways are better ways, even though the Bible warns against such attitudes.

[MrJim]

I have been an Anabaptist for 20+ years and I am also into Reformed Theology. So, what do you call this?

Fun...:P

I was an anabaptist into reformed for a long time but eventually returned to it.

First Mennonite (Calvinist) Church?

[ZiSunka]

:eek: Mennonite Calvinist church????:eek:

You're kidding me! :D

[MrJim]

:eek: Mennonite Calvinist church????:eek:

You're kidding me! :D

Yeah, but wait, someday someone will come up with it!

[ZiSunka]

Mennonites and Calvinism go together like elephants and polar bears! :D

[MrJim]

Mennonites and Calvinism go together like elephants and polar bears! :D

:amen:

[theAmishGirl]

I must be the low man on the theology totem pole but exactly what is Calvanism??

[Danfrey]

You have fallen victim to the idea that the old ways are better ways, even though the Bible warns against such attitudes.

What I have fallen victim to is the idea that maybe a person who lived in the culture and spoke the language the scriptures were written in may have a better idea of what they mean than I do.

I also tire of this discussion. You are correct that you will not change my view that we can gain understanding from those who came before us. I don't believe the bible is open to personal interpretation.

For those who may be reading this without reading the whole thread, I emphasize these points.....

I never claimed, nor do I believe the early church writings are inerrant or canon.

I don't believe they are required to understand scripture

We have thousands of denominations that claim to be lead by the holy spirit coming up with opposing doctrines...in these cases, the early church writers help us understand the scriptures in light of the culture and language in which they were written.

[Danfrey]

I must be the low man on the theology totem pole but exactly what is Calvanism??
Warning, the part after the dash is my own wording that may come across a biased against Calvinism which I am. :)

Calvinism can be summed up by 5 points of doctrine.

Total depravity - You can't choose to serve God unless he makes you
Unconditional election - Choosing you for salvation has nothing to do with anything you have done, will do, or your faith
Limited atonement - The death of Christ takes away sin of only those he chose, not all the world
Irresistable Grace - There is no way to resist following God if you are one of the elect
Perseverence of the Saints - Also known as "Once saved always saved"

[ZiSunka]

I also tire of this discussion. You are correct that you will not change my view that we can gain understanding from those who came before us. I don't believe the bible is open to personal interpretation.

I don't either. I just don't think the early writings that survived are necessarily the ones that should be explaining doctrine to us.

I think personal interpretation without consulting commentaries is quite dangerous in that it may well take you far afield of where the truth lies, but I think you have to be just as cautious about which commentaries you choose. For me, people who believed the Gospel of James is truth and that Mary is co-redemptrix with Christ just don't know what they are talking about.

[JimfromOhio]

I must be the low man on the theology totem pole but exactly what is Calvanism??
Some anabaptists (like one I attended) do NOT clearly teach TULIP (Calvinism) but rather Reformed Theology which TULIP is part of.

To learn more about TULIP, John Piper have many good articles and sermons on them. John Piper is a Reformed Baptist preacher.
The Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism & TULIP Theology) (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/doc_grace_index.html)

[MrJim]

The historic anabaptist position is clearly not a reformed one. A TRUE reformed position will have you baptizing your babies.

Calvin the reformer persecuted the anabaptists because he felt they were heretics.

[theAmishGirl]

ok- thanks for the clarification- i understand some of the basis' held by the church I grew up in now!