How do you know which church is truly the church of Jesus Christ?

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Um, do you have lions chomping on ya? Do you have to fear others finding out you follow Christ because it means you might be put to death? You may believe that Peters line has been followed to the present day (I’m not debating this) but the fact is that though the church was here it has changed over two millennia. Theology has changed (going from a persecuted people to believing in just war theory in the fourth century), but the world has changed. The church went from being a grassroots movement to being a superpower in the middle ages. You don’t go through that kind of change and remain exactly the same institution.

Shlemele, we had a discussion about this on another thread, and I am still waiting for your response to the sources I quoted.

While it is true there has been doctrinal development, this development is in total agreement with what has come before. So, whatever has developed has been done as the Church contemplates itself, thereby coming to a fuller understanding of what God has revealed in Christ.

This is not so with some of the major Protestant beliefs such as sola scripture, sola fide, and the more symbolic views on baptism and communion. These innovations (and I use the word innovation because they did not exist in the early Church) contradict what has come before, so therefore are not valid developments.

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Good to hear from you dennis. To be honest I’m still doing the research. My current job has kind of made it more difficult (I commute 2 hours every day in addition to my shift) but I have also taken this opportunity to learn more about my own church. As I stated before I’m Anabaptist and so the reason not all of the tenants of Protestantism really make sense to me ( the bible for instance is held higher than tradition but individual interpretation is held lower than church consensus, hence you don’t see many uneducated pastors in Mennonite Brethren churches, most must go to seminary ) is that we went a different way than the protestants of the time. Actually I do believe that many of the Anabaptist tenants are closer to the church fathers than other denominations. I’m still doing my research and it has been a bit difficult as MB resources are a bit more scarce than Catholic ones.

I am not one who likes to make statements in error (though it does happen) so I take my time in forming opinions and state them as such. On top of that in doing my research I found evidence to support both sides while reading the church fathers so it may not be an issue of gathering a clear consensus but rather trying to find the cut off between early fathers and those who had to make practical decisions for the sake of the larger population of the church of the fifth century (yep, still hung up on the church as a state institution ).

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Good to hear from you dennis. To be honest I’m still doing the research. My current job has kind of made it more difficult (I commute 2 hours every day in addition to my shift) but I have also taken this opportunity to learn more about my own church. As I stated before I’m Anabaptist and so the reason not all of the tenants of Protestantism really make sense to me ( the bible for instance is held higher than tradition but individual interpretation is held lower than church consensus, hence you don’t see many uneducated pastors in Mennonite Brethren churches, most must go to seminary ) is that we went a different way than the protestants of the time. Actually I do believe that many of the Anabaptist tenants are closer to the church fathers than other denominations. I’m still doing my research and it has been a bit difficult as MB resources are a bit more scarce than Catholic ones.

I am not one who likes to make statements in error (though it does happen) so I take my time in forming opinions and state them as such. On top of that in doing my research I found evidence to support both sides while reading the church fathers so it may not be an issue of gathering a clear consensus but rather trying to find the cut off between early fathers and those who had to make practical decisions for the sake of the larger population of the church of the fifth century (yep, still hung up on the church as a state institution ).

Study is a great thing, and I know how being busy can take away from that.

Do you understand my point about a valid and invalid doctrinal development? This is my biggest contention with Protestantism. To introduce something new, then claim it is old, while manipulating scripture to support your claim, is not intellectually honest.

I am not saying you are doing this, but this in my opinion is what the reformers did.

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Anabaptists are not Protestant. As I study I’m learning this more and more. Anabaptists began with a desire to go back to a earlier version of the church where the community provided for the individual and not just the clergy.

Anabaptism: the basic beliefs
What has made Anabaptists distinctive? What have Anabaptists believed? As heirs of the Anabaptist tradition we need to understand this historical movement. We need to hear its biblical essence - the emphases that we’ve sought to incorporate into our Confession of Faith.

The first Anabaptists of the early 16th century played a distinctive role: they were neither Catholic nor Protestant but a separate third force. That reality, widely forgotten, is beginning to receive renewed attention in modern theological circles.

Certainly, the Anabaptist founders owed much to Luther and the other Protestant reformers. In particular, Luther’s emphasis on salvation - through personal faith, in Christ alone, by grace, as revealed in Scripture - prepared the way. But on many other crucial issues the Anabaptists differed as much from Luther as Luther did from Roman Catholicism.

While giving Luther his due, we do well to remember some historical realities. Luther, as well as Calvin and Zwingli, came to oppose harshly the Anabaptists. In fact, of the 20,000 to 40,000 Anabaptists martyred in the early decades, likely more were massacred by Protestants than by Catholics.

The differences between Anabaptists and the Reformers ran deep.

Luther, Calvin and their associates wanted reformation of the medieval church. The Anabaptists wanted restoration of the New Testament church. The reformers looked to the state to defend the establishment of an official religion. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, sought no government’s endorsement.

“In Christ, salvation and ethics come together.” The reformers asserted that all people in the realm should conform to the official state religion. The Anabaptists, however, long before philosophers promoted the idea, proclaimed religious and civil liberty for all.

The reformers retained much of the Catholic church-state fusion of that day. The Anabaptists, who saw themselves as strangers and pilgrims in this world, rejected any fusion of faith and citizenship. The church of which they testified and for which they died was based on Jesus Christ alone and knew no state boundaries.
The reformers specifically endorsed military slaughter by Christian soldiers. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, expressed love for their persecutors and prayed for them.

The reformers fragmented and compartmentalized Christian living. Luther wrote, “As a Christian, man has to suffer everything and not resist anybody. As a member of the State, the same man has to fight with joy, as long as he lives.” The Anabaptists rejected such ethical dualism.

The point has been made. The Anabaptists were not part of the great Protestant Reformation but established a third option. They upheld distinct value.

(Continued…)

 

[Shlemele]

This is off the MB homepage, there are some other important distinctions in the Anabaptist movement, most notable the emphasis on collectively discerning the bible, not every man for himself. Here are the 12 principals, again off the USMB home page;

Basic Principles of Anabaptist Beliefs
We do well to call ourselves back to the basics even as we acknowledge that Anabaptists do not possess a corner on the truth. Clearly, on certain emphases others can teach us much. We, in turn, present our Anabaptist understanding, which encompasses 12 key principles.

1. A high view of the Bible.
   While not worshipping the Bible itself, for that would be bibliolatry, Anabaptists accept “the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, and through the Holy Spirit…the infallible guide to lead men to faith in Christ and to guide them in the life of Christian discipleship.” Anabaptists insist that Christians must always be guided by the Word, which is to be collectively discerned, and by the Spirit.

1. Emphasis on the New Testament.
   Since Christ is God’s supreme revelation, Anabaptists make a clear functional distinction between the equally inspired Old and New Testaments. We see an old and a new covenant. We read the Old from the perspective of the New and see the New as the fulfillment of the Old. Where the two differ, the New prevails, and thus Anabaptist ethics are derived primarily from the New Testament.

1. Emphasis on Jesus as central to all else.
   Anabaptists derive their Christology directly from the Word and emphasize a deep commitment to take Jesus seriously in all of life. Such a view runs counter to notions that the commands of Jesus are too difficult for ordinary believers or that Jesus’ significance lies almost entirely in providing heavenly salvation. Rather, salvation of the soul is part of a larger transformation.

1. The necessity of a believers’ church.
   Anabaptists believe that Christian conversion, while not necessarily sudden and traumatic, always involves a conscious decision. “Unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Believing that an infant can have no conscious, intelligent faith in Christ, Anabaptists baptize only those who have come to a personal, living faith. Voluntary baptism, together with a commitment to walk in the full newness of life and to strive for purity in the church, constitutes the basis of church membership.

1. The importance of discipleship.
   Becoming a Christian involves not only belief in Christ but also discipleship. Faith is expressed in holy living. In Christ, salvation and ethics come together. Not only are we to be saved through Christ, but we are also to follow him daily in obedient living. Thus, for example, Anabaptists from the beginning renounced the oath. They determined to speak truth. “For them there could be no gradations of truth-telling.” Anabaptists continue to teach that salvation makes us followers of Jesus Christ and that he is the model for the way we are to live.

1. Insistence on a church without classes or divisions.
   The church, the body of Christ, has only one head. While acknowledging functional diversity, Anabaptist believers set aside all racial, ethnic, class and sex distinctions because these are subsumed in the unity and equality of the body.

1. Belief in the church as a covenant community.
   Corporate worship, mutual aid, fellowship and mutual accountability characterize this community. An individualistic or self centered Anabaptism is a contradiction in terms.

(continued…)

 

[Shlemele]

1. Separation from the world.
   The community of the transformed belongs to the kingdom of God. It functions in the world but is radically separate from the world. The faithful pilgrim church sees the sinful world as an alien environment with thoroughly different ethics and goals. This principle includes separation of church and state. Therefore, Anabaptists reject all forms of civil religion, be it the traditional corpus Christianum or more recently developed forms of Christian nationalism.

1. The church as a visible counterculture.
   As a united fellowship of believers every Anabaptist congregation models an alternate community. Such a covenant community functions as an authentic counterculture.

1. Belief that the gospel includes a commitment to the way of peace modeled by the Prince of Peace.
   Here Anabaptists differ from many other Christians. Anabaptists believe that the peace position is not optional, not marginal, and not related mainly to the military. On the basis of Scripture, Anabaptists renounce violence in human relationships. We see peace and reconciliation - the way of love - as being at the heart of the Christian gospel. God gave his followers this ethic not as a point to ponder, but as a command to obey. It was costly for Jesus and it may also be costly for his followers. The way of peace is a way of life.

1. Commitment to servanthood.
   Just as Christ came to be a servant to all, so Christians should also serve one another and others in the name of Christ. Thus, separation from a sinful world is balanced by a witness of practical assistance to a needy and hurting society.

1. Insistence on the church as a missionary church.
   Anabaptists believe that Christ has commissioned the church to go into all the world and all of society and to make disciples of all people, baptizing them and teaching them to observe his commandments. The evangelistic imperative is given to all believers.These principles constitute the essence of Anabaptism. While each emphasis can be found elsewhere, the combination of all twelve constitutes the uniqueness of Anabaptism.

The Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. The early Anabaptists, while diverse and far from perfect, committed themselves to nothing less than the restoration of the New Testament church. We, their heirs, have the privilege of reemphasizing these twelve principles, in word and deed, here and now.

Ok i know that was a lot but as you can see there is a lot that distingusihes the Anababtist church from the Protestants.

 

[Shlemele]

Ok I know I took the long road on this but on your remark about valid and invalid doctrinal development. As a community I believe that the Mennonite community is much closer to what the bible talks about as far as the early church community. From that point I would say that the Anabaptist groups were in fact closer to the early church (as many are still tight knit groups I would say the idea stuck). In time missions began to come more into the forefront and I believe that is another thing that the Anabaptist movement had right (some of the largest Mennonite churches are in the Congo and India).

I won’t go so far as to say we got it right bit in these things I think we landed closer to the mark than other reformers inside or outside of the Roman Catholic church.

 

[allhers]

Shlemele:

Anabaptists are not Protestant. As I study I’m learning this more and more. Anabaptists began with a desire to go back to a earlier version of the church where the community provided for the individual and not just the clergy.

(Continued…)

So are you thinking that the Catholic Church provides just for the clergy? I don’t get this point at all unless that is what you think.
Also, did you miss the part that says that they took much of their beliefs from Luther? (Who was a protestor/protestant.)

 

[allhers]

Shlemele:

Anabaptists are not Protestant. As I study I’m learning this more and more. Anabaptists began with a desire to go back to a earlier version of the church where the community provided for the individual and not just the clergy.

(Continued…)

Certainly, the Anabaptist founders owed much to Luther and the other Protestant reformers.

See??

 

[Mystophilus]

E.E.N.S.:

Actually (and I am sure you know this) we have Mass daily.

I did know this … once.
I keep forgetting just how much more disciplined Catholics are than Protestants generally.

Don’t forget the parable of the mustard seed.

“Nothing will be impossible for you” (Matthew 17:20). What I was recalling was Matthew 13:31-2, and I could not work out what you meant.

And about being in a Church; it is good to be in His [Real] presence in front of the Eucharist.

This is a huge difference in both belief and perception. I sit at this keyboard, immersed in God, as I believe that everyone always is. I know that most people do not feel this, but I cannot escape it.

I do not mean to devalue in any way the sacredness of the Eucharist; I just have a different experience. Nor do I mean to exalt myself in this; like my hero Jonah, my perception of God is not the result of any holiness on my part.

Don’t discount the prayers of a righteous person (or prayers in general for that matter.)

This is an interesting comment to make, because I do not associate prayer with church. I associate prayer with thought, I guess, like Nehemiah:
The king said to me, “What is it you want?”
Then I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king (Neh 2:4-5)
This is related to the ubiquity of God: you may forget, but just turn, and God is always right there with you.

((I know that you know these things, but I thought they would be a healthy reminder.))

Thank you. Sometimes, I think that the books needed to contain all of the things that I have forgotten would be enough to sink whole islands.

 

[Shlemele]

allhers:

So are you thinking that the Catholic Church provides just for the clergy? I don’t get this point at all unless that is what you think.
Also, did you miss the part that says that they took much of their beliefs from Luther? (Who was a protestor/protestant.)

You’re not understanding Anabaptist culture. In an Anabaptist community it’s not just the clergy that takes care of the petitioners, it is the job of the entire church, clergy and lay peoples alike. Also yes there was some things that were taken from the Protestant reformation but Anabaptists were so far removed from the Protestant reformation that neither Protestant or Catholic really trusted them (we did not take oaths, sit in public office, or use violence of any sort). For this reason in many areas we were all but wiped out. Just as many Anabaptists were martyred at the hands of Protestants as by Catholics, perhaps even more.

So you see, though Anabaptists started about the same time period as the Protestant churches there are so many difference that it can hardly be called the same movement.

 

[allhers]

Shlemele:

You’re not understanding Anabaptist culture. In an Anabaptist community it’s not just the clergy that takes care of the petitioners, it is the job of the entire church, clergy and lay peoples alike. Also yes there was some things that were taken from the Protestant reformation but Anabaptists were so far removed from the Protestant reformation that neither Protestant or Catholic really trusted them (we did not take oaths, sit in public office, or use violence of any sort). For this reason in many areas we were all but wiped out. Just as many Anabaptists were martyred at the hands of Protestants as by Catholics, perhaps even more.
So you see, though Anabaptists started about the same time period as the Protestant churches there are so many difference that it can hardly be called the same movement.

See that part I highlighted in red? I have never in my life heard that until now, where did you hear it?

 

[Shlemele]

I have been doing some research, but that was from the Mennonite Bretheren home page. Wikipedia had a good sumation on it;

Much historic Catholic and Protestant literature has represented the Anabaptists as groups who preached false doctrine and led people into apostasy. That negative historiography remained popular for about four centuries. The Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists, resorted to torture and other types of physical abuse, in attempts both to curb the growth of the movement and bring about the salvation of the heretics (through recantation). The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Reformation Anabaptists. Felix Manz became the first martyr in 1527. On May 20, 1527, Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) “the best antidote to Anabaptism”. It has been said that a “16th century man who did not drink to excess, curse, or abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and thus persecuted.” Estep estimates that thousands died in Europe in the sixteenth century.

Thieleman J. van Braght’s Martyrs Mirror describes the persecution and execution of thousands of Anabaptists, such as Dirk Willems, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other parts of Europe between 1525 and 1660. Continuing persecution in Europe was largely responsible for the mass immigrations to North America by Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Anabaptists are not Protestant. As I study I’m learning this more and more. Anabaptists began with a desire to go back to a earlier version of the church where the community provided for the individual and not just the clergy.

But don’t you see that this can never happen.

How can people living in the 16th century, being 1500 years removed from the early Church, recreate it? It is just not historically possible. What you end up with is a interpretation that falls very short of the goal.

Here are a few factors that stand in thw way of anyone attempting to go back to an earlier version of the Church.

1. The early Church was born of Judaism. If you want to recreate the early Church you must have a concrete knowledge of 1st century Judaism.
2. The early Church was born in the Greco/Roman world. This has implactions that are fare reaching. The basic understanding of the world (and universe) are totally different than that of the 16th/17th century. Culturally speaking, this knowledge in all but impossible to recreate.
3. What sort of material did the anabaptists use in the attempted recreation of the early Church? The bible? The bible is not a source book able to historically recreate a time period long gone. It lacks adequate information that was not written down at the time. (BTW this information was handed down orally, hence Tradition).

While I admire the anabaptist’s attempt to go back to an earier version of the church, this is just not possible. For one, the early Church is the Church they are Protesting against, also they lacked the tools and knowledge to do such a thing. What they ended up with was far from what the earlier Church actully looked liked and believed, but don’t take my word for it, it is all in the history books.

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Dennis I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Con we ever get back to the EXACT church of the New Testament? No, we would need a time machine! However we can look at some of the things that the early church did (care for those in the community, embrace the idea that we are not citizens of this world but rather the next, ect).

Also the church of the 15th century looked nothing like the church of the 3rd century. From the research I have been able to do I can find no clear consensus on many subjects. This leads me to believe that they were working these thing out just like we do. What I do know is that when the church made the transition from the early church to the church of Rome certain decisions had to be made on self defense and individualism (one had an official capacity and a Individual Christian capacity). What I mean by this is that (just as today) ones Christian values might have to take back seat to ones career, especially a political one. In the early church this meant persecution not compromise so you see the difference.

The last thing I want to touch on is the statement that the bible does not give sufficient information. Although it doesn’t give the exact detail it does give us a good idea how the church worked when there was need. Those who had gifts provided and I wish more churches had this attitude today. Think of all the good the church could do! I know I saw this ethic when my church build a new gym for the community. Most of the congregation pitched in. Those who knew about construction as well as those of us who were only glorified ditch diggers. Plumbers and kitchen staff pitched in when needed as well. This was my first real life lesson in what a community of faith is all about. So I really don’t see how this is in some manner in conflict with the early church. Is it exact, no but then again I don’t think Christ was as big on specificities he was the condition of the soul.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Dennis I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Con we ever get back to the EXACT church of the New Testament? No, we would need a time machine! However we can look at some of the things that the early church did (care for those in the community, embrace the idea that we are not citizens of this world but rather the next, ect).

Also the church of the 15th century looked nothing like the church of the 3rd century. From the research I have been able to do I can find no clear consensus on many subjects. This leads me to believe that they were working these thing out just like we do. What I do know is that when the church made the transition from the early church to the church of Rome certain decisions had to be made on self defense and individualism (one had an official capacity and a Individual Christian capacity). What I mean by this is that (just as today) ones Christian values might have to take back seat to ones career, especially a political one. In the early church this meant persecution not compromise so you see the difference.

The last thing I want to touch on is the statement that the bible does not give sufficient information. Although it doesn’t give the exact detail it does give us a good idea how the church worked when there was need. Those who had gifts provided and I wish more churches had this attitude today. Think of all the good the church could do! I know I saw this ethic when my church build a new gym for the community. Most of the congregation pitched in. Those who knew about construction as well as those of us who were only glorified ditch diggers. Plumbers and kitchen staff pitched in when needed as well. This was my first real life lesson in what a community of faith is all about. So I really don’t see how this is in some manner in conflict with the early church. Is it exact, no but then again I don’t think Christ was as big on specificities he was the condition of the soul.

The things you meantion as being part of the early Church that your church sought to reclaim I see as still being part of the Catholic Church. The Church’s charitable dimension has never changed. Who were the first to build hospitals, colleges, orphanages, etc? The Catholic Church. This has never changed.

Again we are back to valid development as opposed to invalid development. You see your church’s development as valid because it fits with your understanding of scripture, while as see it as invalid because some of their major beliefs contradict what was taught by the early Church. As a church who seeks to emulate the early Church why go against many of their core beliefs? Many of which were clearly presented before Constantine.

Peace

 

[allhers]

dennisknapp:

The things you meantion as being part of the early Church that your church sought to reclaim I see as still being part of the Catholic Church. The Church’s charitable dimension has never changed. Who were the first to build hospitals, colleges, orphanages, etc? The Catholic Church. This has never changed.

Again we are back to valid development as opposed to invalid development. You see your church’s development as valid because it fits with your understanding of scripture, while as see it as invalid because some of their major beliefs contradict what was taught by the early Church. As a church who seeks to emulate the early Church why go against many of their core beliefs? Many of which were clearly presented before Constantine.

Peace

also, Shlemele, did you know that anyonecould post anythingon that site and that it wouldnt necessairly have to be true either? (just a thought for you.) Plus, if you do accept the Authority of the Bible, then you still accept what the Catholic Church gave the world. Jesus’ teachings!! (the Catholic Church compiled it to begin with, preserved it and some even died for doing so.) talk about persecution. Our Nuns, Priests, Monks, Friars, etc…that are still in existance today as in the early Church, are the one’s who did all of that.(they still live in community) as they did in the early Church and it existed longgggg
before Constantine’s time. (all he did was make it legal to practice what they were already doing.) The Catholic Church is probably the biggest charity giver in the world too, we all give and it goes to the needy, (they don’t say, “hey, you aren’t Catholic, we can’t help you.”)

 

[Shlemele]

also, Shlemele, did you know that anyonecould post anythingon that site and that it wouldnt necessairly have to be true either? (just a thought for you.)

So you are saying that the persecution of the Mennonites is unfounded? I know this to be true (and wikipedia is pretty accurate BTW, more so than the majority of sites out there, that is why I referenced it, it’s an online encyclopedia). Other than that just do a Google search for Mennonite Anabaptist persecution, I’m sure you can find a reputable site that will ease your mind on the subject.

Plus, if you do accept the Authority of the Bible, then you still accept what the Catholic Church gave the world. Jesus’ teachings!!

As I stated earlier in this thread the Catholic church handed it down but the Catholic church does not go on scripture alone. Traditions are also used and put on the same level as the bible, this is what I have problems with. Not all of the teachings of the early fathers are in agreement the way the bible is. This tells me that even this early on in the churches history there were disagreements on theology. The catholic church (notice the lower case, the difference is it was the only church back then) developed the bible from choosing the “most congruent” of these books for lack of a better term. Some were close, some on the fence and some not so much. These books are still studied at my college, they are the apocryphal scripture. Some denominations reject these books, mine doesn’t. Neither here nor there…

The point is that for all this the catholic church chose the “mostest correctest” scripture. We believe this was on direction of the holy spirit. These books were passed down by the Catholic church, yes but the Bible isn’t the sole basis of the Catholic faith. Tradition is placed just as high. This is a problem for me and many others of the Anabaptist faith. We don’t’ believe that the individual has sole authority but we do hold that scripture trumps tradition.

In summary we thank you for the gift of the bible but hope you will understand if we don’t hold tradition to the same esteem.

(the Catholic Church compiled it to begin with, preserved it and some even died for doing so.) talk about persecution.

Umm, the Anabaptists were almost wiped out in some places just for being Anabaptist. Yes there have been martyrs on both sides but the Anabaptists haven’t been the persecutors. Non-violence is a tenant of our faith. Unlike Protestant or Catholic where government officials were one or the others and able to make safe havens Anabaptists didn’t take public office so we were at the mercy of those in power. Not all of these governments were tolerant of Anabaptists.

I agree that both churches have undergone persecution but in this case it’s kind of apples and oranges.

Our Nuns, Priests, Monks, Friars, etc…that are still in existance today as in the early Church, are the one’s who did all of that.(they still live in community) as they did in the early Church and it existed longgggg before Constantine’s time. (all he did was make it legal to practice what they were already doing.) The Catholic Church is probably the biggest charity giver in the world too, we all give and it goes to the needy, (they don’t say, “hey, you aren’t Catholic, we can’t help you.”)

Again not being familiar with Mennonite community I think this is something that may be hard to grasp unless you have experienced it. In a Mennonite community the charity you prescribe to priests, nuns ect. is expected but lay peoples and not just the clergy. I remember my Grandmother and my mother working out in the church who will bake meals for sick families and those in need. I did some work for MDS in high school after the LA quake along with the rest of my youth group. When there is a need it does not fall solely on the clergy to fill it, the whole community is expected to help in whatever capacity they can. Mennonites shortcomings have never been about giving but rather giving outside the community (this changed in the 19th century as persecutions began to become less and less of a reason for Mennonites to be shut off from outside groups). Now MDS (Mennonite Disaster Service) is just one of many public service organizations that the church is involved in and the Mennonite Brethren church has one of the largest populations in the Congo and India because of this. I never said that the Catholic church doesn’t give charitably, I just point out that the mindset is different.

[/quote]

 

[Shlemele]

dennisknapp:

The things you meantion as being part of the early Church that your church sought to reclaim I see as still being part of the Catholic Church. The Church’s charitable dimension has never changed. Who were the first to build hospitals, colleges, orphanages, etc? The Catholic Church. This has never changed.

As in the previous post I agree that the Catholic church has indeed been a charitable giver, what I am saying is that in the early church charity was more a function of the laity than the clergy. When someone is sick it is the responsibility of those in the church to pray if that is their vocation, heal if it is their vocation, and take care of needs of the family if that is their vocation. Charity does not fall solely on the clergy.

Again we are back to valid development as opposed to invalid development. You see your church’s development as valid because it fits with your understanding of scripture, while as see it as invalid because some of their major beliefs contradict what was taught by the early Church. As a church who seeks to emulate the early Church why go against many of their core beliefs? Many of which were clearly presented before Constantine.

Peace

Again I can answer this but not as fully as I’m sure you would want. The early fathers I have read don’t give clear indications of some doctrine and so I defer to scripture in cases where I haven’t found other indications or the indications I do find contradict each other. Again I think you pretty much summed it up when you said you see some things as invalid, I see them as valid. You have evidence as do I. I’d rather not get in a contest of slinging verses used to support our opinions because we both know that you can find backing for quite a lot if you take it far enough out of context. For now let’s just agree that we don’t see eye to eye on one topic and continue in learning about the other, all the while keeping in mind that though separated we are brothers.

 

[allhers]

Well, you still have the Catholic Church all wrong, we all take part in the teachings of the Church, we are Christ to the world, it isn’t just the Clergy but all of us working together, I merely pointed out to you that the Nuns, Priests, Monks, etc…STILL live in Community as they did from the beginning. You apparently didn’t know that.