Baptist, Amish, Mennonites and Quakers.

[Marissa]

Simple question. What belief do y'all hold that puts you in this camp together?

I know what you all believe in essence, but the only substantial thing that I can think that puts you together is adult baptism. That's not what the front page says however, and if it a case a few denoms have been left off so I just thought I'd check I haven't missed some other blaringly obvious doctrical belief you all share that's separates you from everyone else.

(I have to say that the hardest thing about being a christian is all these names we give ourselves. Trying to sort out this mess just leaves me in a muddle).

[seebs]

I think a lot of it is that these are churches which are not really either Protestant or Catholic, strictly speaking. These are churches which aren't really spin-offs of the Catholic Church, but didn't come out of the Protestant Reformation either. I think they arguably trace some heritage to the basic Protestant idea of being willing to declare independance from Rome, but beyond that, there's a lot of variety. So, the Reformed forum is essentially entirely Protestant, but this forum has a lot of people who wouldn't really consider themselves Protestants.

[kayanne]

I think a lot of it is that these are churches which are not really either Protestant or Catholic, strictly speaking. These are churches which aren't really spin-offs of the Catholic Church, but didn't come out of the Protestant Reformation either. I think they arguably trace some heritage to the basic Protestant idea of being willing to declare independance from Rome, but beyond that, there's a lot of variety. So, the Reformed forum is essentially entirely Protestant, but this forum has a lot of people who wouldn't really consider themselves Protestants.

I guess I have lots to learn about church history. I always thought Baptists were considered Protestants (although I've never really liked that title). What about all the non-denom churches--would those not be considered Protestant either?

[P_G]

Well lets see

Mennonites and Baptists have in common

Faith in the diety of Jesus Christ
Beleive he was crucified, dead and burried
Faith in Christ Jesus as the sole path to salvation
Bible as the inerrent word of G-d
Full imersion Baptism of beleivers
Faith in the resurection of the dead
Accept the triune God head three persons one eternally existant G-d
A literal heaven and h3ll
The existance of Satan as a real force and as the accuser of the brethern

And both Baptist Girls and Mennonite girls are the best cooks in all of Christendom!
Now pass me some of Mrs, Browns potatoe salad please!


Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[Crazy Liz]

Historically, the Anabaptists are the oldest of these groups. Anabaptists include Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, and at least some Brethren denominations. Maybe a few others I can't think of right now.

The Anabaptists were part of the early Reformation on the European continent. The first Anabaptists were followers of Zwingli, who is generally considered, after Luther and Calvin, to be the third most prominent leader of the Reformation. The Anabaptist are also called the Radical Reformation. They took Zwingli's idea that baptism (and communion, as well) is merely a symbolic act of obedience with no inherent value. It is only of value when done as an act of obedience to Christ.

Based on this teaching, the Anabaptists concluded that parents should not baptize their babies, but that baptism would only be valuable to them if they did it when they were old enough to decide for themselves to follow Christ. Interestingly, as a result of this idea, they closely associated baptism with church membership, unknowingly moving closer to Eastern Orthodox ideas about baptism as initiation into the Church (although EOs baptize infants - still there are interesting parallels). Unlike the practices of most Baptists, in a church of Anabaptist heritage you will not see people baptized without them being received into church membership in the same service. Baptism means taking on the responsibility to live within a community of believers, giving and receiving counsel in submission to one another, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures are Anabaptists only rule for life and faith. Scriptures are interpreted, not individually, but by the whole community (church) together. Of all the Scriptures, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has historically been of the most influence, with its emphasis on living a holy life and avoiding use of force or coercion, such as lawuits and violence.

Baptists historically came later in England and Scandinavia (so that Covenant and Evangelical Free denominations probably belong in this forum as well - Mods, any chance of adding them to the forum description?). They shared the idea of baptism for believers only, and as they were starting received guidance from Anabaptists in the European Low Countries. They were much more individualistic than the European Anabaptists. Not only was the initial decision to follow Christ considered an individual one, but one's interpretation of scripture and determination of how to follow was also more individualistic.

Quakers (aka Friends) also originated in England, independently from the Baptists. George Fox rejected all ritual, including water baptism and communion "with the elements," in favor of recognizing only spiritual baptism and spiritual communion. The impetus behind this is similar to that of the early Anabaptists. Quakers seem to combine some of the Baptist individualism with some of the Anabaptist emphasis on community, so that in this aspect Quakers tend to fall between the two. Quakers put more emphasis on the activity of the Holy Spirit within the individual (often for the sake of the community) rather than on any written authority. The Bible is highly valued and respected, but not all Quakers (there is a wide range) use it as a source of authority.

I hope what I said is helpful and fair to all groups. The major threads Anabaptists, Baptists and Quakers share is the idea that being a Christian is something an individual must choose for him/herself, and therefore we do not baptize infants or anyone else who has not made a personal, individual profession of faith.

I can think of at least three other denominations that would not identify themselves as Anabaptist, Baptist or Quaker that do not belong in any other category in the Congregation forums (shuch as Charismatic or Pentecostal) and share the common characteristics described above: Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, and Salvation Army. I hereby nominate them for inclusion in the list of denominations included in this forum.

[Crazy Liz]

Full imersion Baptism of beleivers

All Mennonites baptize believers only, but not all baptize by full immersion.

[P_G]

All Mennonites baptize believers only, but not all baptize by full immersion.

I will defer on that
But I have never seen or heard any MCA do any sprinkling.

Perhaps you refer to OOM? Or Brethern?

But too due to the freedom in the local church I would say you have a high probability of being correct.

As for me if you ask me to baptize you you can rest assured of 2 things

1 You will go down to the river
2 You will go completely under

And you may find a fish in your pocket when you come up! :D
(I tell that to everyone!)


Blessings

Pastor George :wave:

[seebs]

I guess I have lots to learn about church history. I always thought Baptists were considered Protestants (although I've never really liked that title). What about all the non-denom churches--would those not be considered Protestant either?

Most of them would object to being called Protestant, anyway. But Crazy Liz did a wonderful job of summarizing why these groups are where they are.

[Servant of the Kingdom]

Why full immersion only?

in the Didache full immersion is just the prefered method, I know it's not the Bible, yet... we don't have many sources of the early church left..

[Servant of the Kingdom]

Nehemiah. one day you will have to share your beliefs :)

[Marissa]

Well lets see

Mennonites and Baptists have in common

Faith in the diety of Jesus Christ
Beleive he was crucified, dead and burried
Faith in Christ Jesus as the sole path to salvation
Bible as the inerrent word of G-d
Full imersion Baptism of beleivers
Faith in the resurection of the dead
Accept the triune God head three persons one eternally existant G-d
A literal heaven and h3ll
The existance of Satan as a real force and as the accuser of the brethern




With all due respect Pastor, the only one of those that isn't common in the majority of christian denominations is the Full immersion Baptism of believers.

Going by that list you could almost say the baptists and the catholics were in the same sect and throw that lot in the OBOB forum.


I hope what I said is helpful and fair to all groups. The major threads Anabaptists, Baptists and Quakers share is the idea that being a Christian is something an individual must choose for him/herself, and therefore we do not baptize infants or anyone else who has not made a personal, individual profession of faith.

I can think of at least three other denominations that would not identify themselves as Anabaptist, Baptist or Quaker that do not belong in any other category in the Congregation forums (shuch as Charismatic or Pentecostal) and share the common characteristics described above: Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, and Salvation Army. I hereby nominate them for inclusion in the list of denominations included in this forum.

The reason I asked is because I heard that pentecostals actually have a lot in common with anabaptist (actually that we were anabaptist but..), with the charismatic bit thrown on the end (though Pastor George is proof we're not the only folks who taken that route), and I like to know what everyone else calls where I'm coming from, and what I've got in common with who. Makes things simplier. If what you've written is true, then we have come to a similiar position on many issues, if by a different direction (I'm not sure where the pentecostal movement branched out from).

Very interesting stuff. Thank you for the explanation.

[GeorgiaGuy]

I thought that full immersion was the standard for most churches. After all, Jesus was baptized that way.

[schwartmrs]

Marissa,

As I understand it, the Pentecostal Movement traces its roots back to the Azuza Street revival which, in turn was sparked by the revival in Kansas in 1901....the people in that revival were Holiness folks ....the Holiness movement started as an offshoot of the Methodist church.

Hope that helps

Shade

[Marissa]

Yes, as far as I know we came from the Holiness movement. Unfortunately I don't know what the holiness movement actually is so that never meant much to me. That doesn't mean we can't come to some of the same conclusions. It seems we have. Like I said, I just like to know I have in common with other folks, and what other folks have in common with each other. It's the only way to sort out this denominational mess we've created.

GeorgiaGuy: No, full immersion of adults is not the stardard procedure. Sprinkling (of babies and adults) would be the most used method of baptism.

[Crazy Liz]

Not just the Methodists, but they were by far the greatest numbers in the holiness movement of the 19th century, along with the Quakers! Mennonites also share a holiness tradition, but kept to themselves, so were less influential than the Methodists and Quakers.

[P_G]

I agree that what binds us together is pretty universal to all Christian denominations. Save for the Beleivers Baptism which is some thing you are going to find in Baptist, Anabaptist, AoG and other Pentecostal churchs and most non denoms.

The "high" churches are going to baptize infants after the tradition of the RCC.

There is much wich seperates the Baptists and the Mennonites but I will choose not to get mired down in a discussion about Calvanism and doctrine it gives me headaches. Rather let us celebrate our sameness and oneness.

Pastor George :wave:

[Cright]

Why full immersion only?

in the Didache full immersion is just the prefered method, I know it's not the Bible, yet... we don't have many sources of the early church left..
Jesus was baptised by immersion.
All of the examples of baptism were to believing adults in the bible, and it was always in large bodies of water.

[Crazy Liz]

*bump*

[Crazy Liz]

*bumping again :blush: *

[SumTinWong]

Two preachers a Baptist(BP) and a Presbyterian (PP) were arguing about full immersion one day and the PP had enough and took the BP down to the river:

(PP) I just want to clarify this with you. So you mean to tell me that if I go into this water up to my ankles I am not Baptized?
(BP) No sir!

(PP)What about up to my thighs?
(BP) Nope!

(PP)What about up to my shoulders?
(BP) Not quite!

(PP) What about over my head?
(BP) Yes sir that is it, now you've got it!

(PP) But that is what we have said all along that it is the top of the head that counts!

I thought it was funny anyway... :yum:

[Crazy Liz]

^_^ I was thinking about that joke as I was reading the "Biblical baptism" thread. ^_^

[SumTinWong]

It is a classic!!! Both the Presbyterian Pastor that I have Bible study with on Wednesdays, and my Baptist Pastor, loved it. :cool:

[Athanasian Creed]

Crazy Liz quote:

I can think of at least three other denominations that would not identify themselves as Anabaptist, Baptist or Quaker that do not belong in any other category in the Congregation forums (such as Charismatic or Pentecostal) and share the common characteristics described above: Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Free, and Salvation Army. I hereby nominate them for inclusion in the list of denominations included in this forum.

I have been associated in the past with both the Evangelical Free Church and the Salvation Army. I know the Salvation Army does not practice either the Lord's Supper nor baptism in their churches. As for the EFC, i don't recall them practicing either as well ! :scratch:

Anyone from either fellowship know why ???:confused:


Ray :wave:

[Crazy Liz]

I have been associated in the past with both the Evangelical Free Church and the Salvation Army. I know the Salvation Army does not practice either the Lord's Supper nor baptism in their churches. As for the EFC, i don't recall them practicing either as well !
:scratch:
Anyone from either fellowship know why ???:confused:

When I belonged to an EFC, both baptism and communion were practiced. However, one did not have to be baptized to become a church member. I was surprised by this, having come from a Mennonite background. As it was explained to me, they believe they should not exclude anyone from church membership that God would not exclude from salvation. Since they think baptism is noot necessary for salvation, they do not require it for church membership. However, they did encourage it.

I found this philosophy strange, as they did require new members to affirm belief in the premillennial return of Christ. :scratch: I explained that I did not think this was an essential of the faith. I told them I was willing to affirm my belief in the bodily return of Christ to the earth, but not to affirm anything about the timeline. The church accepted me for membership.

I haven't seen anyone here from the Salvation Army. I understand they (like the Quakers) do not see the scriptures as requiring baptism or communion. They have their own method of initiation into the church that substitutes for baptism, which they consider a ritual relevant to ancient times but not to their millieu. I don't know whta they teach about communion.

I don't know if this helps.

[pieman3141]

I go to a MB (Mennonite Brethren) church. I'm actualy not sure what the MB stances are, because I don't actually consider myself a Mennonite. I just say I'm Christian, for simplicity. I do believe in most things on that list. Our church is currently trying to figure out what "membership" means, even though if you're baptized (immersion), in our church, then you're a member. I wasn't baptized in the same church. I consider myslef to be a member, though, albeit unofficial.

[pieman3141]

BTW The Salvation Army doesn't conduct communion primarily of the original congregation: drunkards, beggars and the like. Giving wine to a drunkard doesn't make sense. And back then, grape juice wasn't common. Hence, they do not serve communion.

[Crazy Liz]

I go to a MB (Mennonite Brethren) church. I'm actualy not sure what the MB stances are, because I don't actually consider myself a Mennonite. I just say I'm Christian, for simplicity. I do believe in most things on that list. Our church is currently trying to figure out what "membership" means, even though if you're baptized (immersion), in our church, then you're a member. I wasn't baptized in the same church. I consider myslef to be a member, though, albeit unofficial.

:wave: Welcome, Pieman! I grew up MB, so even though I'm not in a Mennonite church now, I still consider myself Mennonite.

With a handle like yours, you must come over to The Barnraising (http://www.christianforums.com/t680464) for a piece of shoo-fly pie. :clap:

[Crazy Liz]

bump

[Crazy Liz]

bump

[seebs]

Just came back from Wednesday night Meeting. We get a lot of people who wander through for a while, pleased to discover that there's a service in the middle of the week, about when you most need a bit of quiet time. Unusually crowded night, for Wednesdays; I think we had 8 people. Very pleasant. The windows were open (they almost always are in summer) and you could hear children playing outside. I sometimes wonder if those aren't the purest prayers; no self-consciousness, no demands, just a pure shout of joy.

[Crazy Liz]

bump

[Crazy Liz]

bump

[Crazy Liz]

bump