Very good presentation and a lot of information. As a Mennonite though I have to correct you on one point. We are not pacifists we are Non-resistant. There is a difference and almost every Mennonite will hold to this.
Thanks Sandra for your clarification. I found this pdf online - would you consider it a good description of the difference? www.anabaptistmennonites.net/index_htm_files/PacifismOrNonResistance.pdf
@@ReadyToHarvestI am still searching for a denominational home. To that end, I would find it helpful to know yours. If so, thank you very much. God bless you.
Great video. I'm a direct descendant of Swiss Mennonite leader Christian Stauffer. After being exiled to Germany, they eventually made their way to Lancaster. I've heard Mennonites described as the Charismatics of the reformation.
I was raised Independent Fundamental Baptist and have always wondered what the difference’s were between baptists and Mennonite and even Amish. I’ve known a handful of members from my church who have made the switch from Baptist to Amish, although this was just the difference’s between Baptist and Mennonite, I really never knew the differences between the two groups. This was very informative, thank you for making this video.
Pulse Width Modulation is your friend here. By rapidly toggling between 2 spiritual knob settings, such as I. Baptist and Mennonite 1.0, you can have a fine level of the mixture of how much you want of each faith by varying the chronological duty cycle.
Very interesting. Some of my ancestors, and myself included, were an interesting combination of Conservative Mennonite and C&MA influence. I currently attend a Conservative Mennonite Church but still hold to the more charismatic and higher Christian Life leanings and interpretations of the C&MA. Joseph Ramseyer, my a distant uncle of mine was the spiritual founder of the "Missionary Church". This movement blossomed after his ministry in the Defenseless Mennonite Church was revoked after he was re-baptized by immersion at a C&MA conference. Your videos are very insightful.
Muchos bautistas como fue mi caso, terminan por abrazar algún brazo de los menonitas. Yo creo que esto es debido a que entre los Bautistas se menciona mucho el anbaptismo del siglo XVI como el surgimiento de la denominacion, aunque estrictamente está denominacion, solo fue influenciada por dicho movimiento Menonita/Huterita/Amish en algunas cuestiones pero su surgimiento vino desde los separatistas en la iglesia Anglicana.
As a non practicing CofE I am aware of the Amish through movies and TV, and have seen the word Mennonite, Anabaptist etc., but have no idea what they me meant or believed. Thank you for your clear and structured explanation of what, from the outside, seems to be a very complicated history.
Very accurate speaking as a life long IFB. Perseverance of the saints, eternal security, once saved always saved, and the various Armenian and catholic beliefs on losing salvation and apostasy need a video.
Thank you for sharing this. I was raised as a Catholic (in that I attended Catholic schools). However did not stay a practicing Catholic into adulthood. I’ve been researching my family history. Found out there are some Lutherans and Baptist’s. Was trying to understand what this was like. As a middle aged mother I do like to live a conservative simple living permaculture way of life. Seems that I am drawn to The Mennonite way of living. I didn’t really know much about Anabaptists until very recently. Interesting to learn about the European roots of Australian Mennonites.
Read the Scriptures - they contradict the Roman Catholic beliefs on purgatory, transubstantion, the Mass as a real sacrifice for sins offered by 'priests,' the bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church, etc. I recommend you read gospel of John, The letter to Romans and esp Hebrews which contradict the idea of the Mass - as only Christ can offer a true sacrifice for sins on the cross - one High Priest, One Sacrifice, and one offering, and completed - He sat down, and He said it is Finished. Christians only offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving [which is ehat eucharist means], sacrifices of their bodies as living sacrifices of holiness and doing good works. The only literal sacrifice for sins that propitation of the wrath of God for out sin is the death of Christ on the cross - he was crucified between two thieves. The sacrifice isnt being continued or offered by mere human creatures [roman priests] and God doesnt need to be reminded of His Son's finished sacrifice. Only Christ is the lamb of god who takes away sins, and him Alone. He is God, and truly human. The Scriptures also in1 corinthians 11 call it bread multiple times, while roman Catholic say we must reject our senses and believe there is 'no bread.' But Jesus rose physically from the dear and they SAW he had flesh and bones and sae him eat fish and touch his wounds. But if our senses arent trustworthy, then this undermines the Resurection of Christ. Also claiming that jesus true human body is in Heaven and also in every Roma. Catholic church undermines his true humanity, as a true human body is only in only place. Saying its a miracle doesnt work, since God can do all things but not contradictions, and it contradicts Jesus true humanity and the evidence of the Resureection of Jesus Christ. Roman catholics are required to believe that it only looks like bread but is 'no bread' when Scripture says its bread many times. And Christ physical body, as a true human body, cannot literally be in many places at the same time. And without transubstantion, the Mass cannot be a literal Sacrifice for Sins that appeases God's Wrath, which is the purpose of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Which is impossible because only Christ id a true Priest and without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, and once sins are forgiven, there is no longer any offering. Read Hebrews carefully and believe it. Menno did have a serious error, which the other Reformers did not have - He didnt believe jesus true humanity came from His mother, the blessed virgin Mary. That is completely wrong, as thr bible says Jesus was descended from King David and was truly human from Mary. His humanity didnt come from heaven as some think and Mary wasnt just a pipe through which jesus passed. Jesus is truly God, and added humanity to His Divinity from Mary. Lutherans, Reformed, anglicans, even Roman catholics reject menno's weird ideas on Jesus humanity.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 That's because the Catholic Church isn't Sola Scriptura (scripture alone). They'll tell you this if you ask. They'll say they give just as much credence to the leaders of the church and Catholic writers of old as they do scripture itself. That's why they can justify pergutory, praying to Mary and Saints, etc. To say to a Catholic "your beliefs aren't backed up by scripture" is a total waste of time because they don't view scripture as the only ultimate authority
@@blakeedmondson9573 they don't accept Scripture, but they should. Because Scripture is God's Word, the Spirit goes with the Word and changes hearts. Also, their beliefs are self contradictory because they claim to affirm Scripture in some sense yet reject what Scripture teaches.
Regarding foot washing, some independent Baptist churches do practice it. My former church was independent missionary Baptist and practiced foot washing. The church I currently pastor is "United Baptist" but would be much closer to being Independent than the classic United group. We still practice foot washing. Some of the most wonderful, humbling, Spirit-filled services I've ever been in are foot washing.
Very informative video! Being that I am a Baptist minister, I have something to add, many of us do practice anointing of the sick with oil as well as washing of the saints feet during our lords supper services. Although not all of us do it is worth mentioning that those of us among the more conservative congregations do.
How do you find conservative Baptists? It used to be that I knew Baptists where the ladies and girls did not cut or trim their hair (see book by John R Rice, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Woman Preachers ") and they only wore dresses or skirts. They didn't use or listen to worldly music (listen to Frank Garlock at Bob Jones).
Yes, my Dad is in an IFB church and when he got cancer he asked the pastor to anoint him with oil and the elders and pastor prayed over him, he is currently in remission so it worked. Praise God.
@@kianafarr6602 if this is true then why didnt this make the news and cancer patients lining up down the street for miles?? Great if it is true.. But hard to believe cancer can be fully cured without proper treatment by anointing oil.
The mennonite church I attend doesn't have insurance because they're supposed to rely on the church not the government. They have their own, cheaper, health insurance, like Samaritan Ministries. Also, they told me it's related to not having to pay social security taxes.
@@davidchupp4460 You won't take that too far or logic might make you not ever trim your hair, bathe, etc... There is a general consensus among "pretty much everyone" when makeup on someone makes them look "cheap" and when it looks nice and professional or just natural. If you're not a woman, then you can't really know how much better you can feel if you know you look your best.
@@beckypetersen2680 look I’m not saying it’s wrong. However we can also be dissatisfied and be looking for approval from others when in all actuality their opinion means nothing. We should look to God for approval not man. I know lots of Ladies who don’t use makeup who’s spirit of love joy and peace make them more attractive than any lady with a pretty face. Real men know what’s important.
The only correction I can speak to as independent baptist would be we do recognize foot washing as biblical we just seldom practice it. I have seen it happen once only but spoken of many times. Also, we do use annointing oil. Our preacher used it on our son when he was an infant and was having trouble breathing.
Interesting video. MC USA has a "sister" conference here in Canada, MCC (Mennonite Church Canada). Especially in SK, many Mennonites are moderate or modernized (such as myself), and are therefore indistinguishable from Evangelical groups. The more conservative groups are known as Colony Mennonites, and even they have modernized slightly. The most conservative group here would be Hutterites, and there is not really much of an Amish presence here. MCC has been declining as many Mennonite congregations go independent or form smaller "conferences" because of our holding/agreement with conservative groups theologically. The stance which MCC has taken is viewed as "worldly" by many congregations. Essentially, in our area, most Mennonite congregations carry some traditional theological views, but do not hold to the old cultural views (as stated, indistinguishable from Evangelical groups). We base our faith and views on what the Bible says, not the world or even the mainstream Churches. Still nice to see information spread to those who may be uninformed about the Anabaptists. Also, and very importantly, we believe in the one Church. Denominations easily become barriers, and I would rather be known as a child of God and a follower of Jesus before a Mennonite.
Hey, a fellow SK Mennonite on RUclips! I did find his generalizations of Mennonites to be about old colony Mennonites and not consistent with my experience. I feel Mennonites here look more like the independent Baptists he described.
Actually, the denomination should be referred to as MC Canada, as MCC refers to the Mennonite Central Committee, which is the charity organization for international relief work (and historically has helped Mennonites flee war)
Thank you for this calm and detailed exposition. May I, as a Independent Baptist preacher, make a few points. While Independent Baptists do not hold to a world-wide denomination as The Church, we do hold to the universal, invisible organism which is The Church; the Body of Christ to which all born again by the Spirit, children of God (John 1:14) belong. Secondly, the practice and exercise of Church Discipline in independent churches is very difficult when a person who has been disciplined can go down the road to another Independent church, and probably, sadly, because we are so dominated by numbers and income, be accepted there. It's difficult to believe that in Paul's day, when all churches were independent and local, (while still being taught directly and indirectly by the Apostles), the same template may not also have prevailed. Paul's teaching on the subject in Corinthians is specific to the sins of that church and its membership, not all the churches, and also counselled the retention of disciplined people within the church following their repentance and making of restitution. Today we need to be as quick to forgive as we often are to condemn. In addition, Paul's rules were to apply to sin, not to failure to observe a man-made set of rules upon which a congregation might be based. Thirdly, 'membership' of local churches in the New Testament is observed to have been based on no ceremony or 'signing off' of a statement of faith or subscription to dress code or the like; the members of the Body of Christ were welcomed by other gatherings of the Body of Christ. I should add that no such thing as a 'closed table' of communion appears in Acts, or in the teaching on communion in the Epistles (not suggesting that that is the case with the Mennonites, by the way). Attendance at the Lord's Table was commanded, a right attitude was counselled, and we are warned not to trifle with this, one of the only two practices of the Church commanded by Jesus. May God bless yo as you continue to hold up a light in a dark place..
Thank you Paul. I appreciate you adding some additional firsthand information. To be clear, some Independent Baptists do not believe in any Universal Invisible Church. I emphasize that it's only some. Here's an example: www.historicbaptist.org/docs/EIGHT%20ILL%20EFFECTS%20OF%20PROMOTING%20THE%20UNIVERSAL%20CHURCH%20FALLACY.pdf
@@ReadyToHarvest Fair point, "baptist' is probably as broad a 'church' as it's possible to have. As any group which encompasses new-comers (as opposed to people growing up in it), people bring their theological baggage as well as their emotional and experiential baggage with them, and that results in some interesting diversity, to say the least. I grew up as an evangelical street preacher, and I have brought my perspectives from that to my ministry; if people say they are born again and, as my old preacher dad used to say, on their way to heaven and dead sure of getting there, I welcome them. Time will tell how real their experience and testimony is, in the mean time, I preach the Word, and am instant in season and out of season. Again, God bless you as you serve Him; I doubt we'll even meet here, but I look forward to seeing 'way up in glory land'.
@@ReadyToHarvest I think the Independent Baptist Church that I go to believes in the Universal Body of Christ. I guess all their Churches are different. They call me up on "zoom" conferences to pray 🙏 for people, so they must think I'm saved. (I'm not a "legal" member. I just attend there).
Back in the time of Jesus, most roads were not paved. Washing His friends feet, He was doing a servant's job. What I think by what He meant by that is that we should take care of each other.
Great comparison! As a Mennonite and member of a CMC church I would only correct you on one thing besides the non-resistant/pacifist topic. There are a lot of missionaries and missions within the Mennonite Church. Look up Rosedal Mennonite Missions, the mission branch of the CMC and also CAM, Christian Aid Ministries. They are the ones that had the group recently kidnapped in Haiti. Also would love to see and know the difference in local service? Mennonites have MDS, Mennonite Disaster Service, that sends groups from all churches to do service projects across the US and other countries. Do independent baptists have something similar? Great video!
I grew up in independent Baptist church and went to one of the seminaries. Independent Baptist can be very conservative but come from a completely different background than Mennonites. In the early 1900’s J Frank Norris split from the southern Baptist, due to signs of liberalism, and created the IBC. They were not from ani Baptist but from the southern Baptist, who were originally Calvinist.
I started going on a bus to an Independent Baptist Church around 1960 at 7 years of age. Here 60 years later I am still in regular attendance ( 3 times weekly plus visitation and passing out tracts and witnessing as men are street preaching). By what you said , mostly I have been attending CONSERVATIVE Independent Baptist Churches for the past 60+ years . KJV preached and quoted by most members , strong stand on modest dress ( but no one shunned if they don't adhere). My sons 😢😢😢😢 no longer attend church ( Romans 14:12). My preacher husband has been deceased 14 years.😢 I just love my church friends and family!!!! But "Even so, come LORD JESUS "!!!!!🎉
As a Mennonite, I have only one objection to this video: the church I attend (EMC) is in fact involved in missions and has upwards of 20 members serving currently
Hello, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 KJV The bible says that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins and that it saves us. Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16. The bible teaches that when a person receives the gift of the Holy Ghost that it will be manifested by speaking in other toungues (real languages that you have never learned). Acts 2:4, Mark 16:17, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6 etc. Born of water = water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Born of the Spirit = receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in new toungues. The NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is JESUS CHRIST. Matthew 28:19=Acts 2:38 If you were baptized under the titles Father, Son, Holy Ghost then you were baptized wrong. You must be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ like we are commanded in Acts 2:38. If you wanna be saved and enter into the kingdom of God then you must obey Acts 2:38. Mennonites do not believe that speaking in toungues is for today. Mennonites do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. That means that mennonites have not obeyed Acts 2:38. That means that mennonites are not born of water and of the Spirit. That means that mennonites are not Christians because they have not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38. The new testament started on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Ghost was poured out. The new testament way of salvation that the apostles preached was: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38 For it is written: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5
@@karmenfriesen2681 I used to be a old colony Mennonite but now I am a Christian. Did you know that there are no Mennonites in the bible? There are no denominations in the bible. Jesus only has one church and it's called by his name "The church of Jesus Christ". Act 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16 Every baptism performed in the new testament was done in the name of Jesus. Nobody was baptized in the titles Father,Son,Holy Ghost. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Colossians 3:17 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
@@karmenfriesen2681 Here's what the bible says: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Timothy 2:5 One God plus one man does not equal three persons. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3 Jesus said that his Father is the only true God. That means that there can be no trinity. Paul said: "But to us there is but one God, the Father" 1Corinthians 8:6 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Dueteronomy 6:4 "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" Isaiah 45:5 There is no trinity in the bible. The doctrine of the trinity came from the catholic church who borrowed it from paganism.
@@ReadyToHarvest If you get to German Baptists, I would be willing to be textual content proof reader. Could do the same for some Mennonite or other Anabaptist topics. And i am always interested in learning more about various Baptists especially those who are most conservative in practice. I would also like information on Baptist Bible colleges and a comparison - Masters, Heartland, West Coast, Crown, Maranatha, Pensacola, and Bob Jones..!!!
Thank you for the explicit differentiation among doctrines held by various denominations. I suspect most believers who seriously seek to know God must acknowledge a core set of foundational doctrines with respect and grace for all other doctrinal differences. Heard one explain no one fully understands, all denominations have errors. Some errors are trivial, others more grievous. Vigorous debate is fine. Stick to scriptures exclusively. Season with grace. But splitting, rejecting or excommunication for any but most profound, core doctrines is wrong, wrong wrong!
If Mennonites were not so strict into separation, I would agree with their doctrine. Yet scripture doesn't teach Christains should separate themselves from the world, for how can a person shine their light when their light is hidden out of sight?
I live amongst Mennos here in WPA. They aren't as separatist as many think they are. The reason that folks misinterpret them is because you don't see them at ball games, movies, restaurants and such but they are easy to mingle with in work settings which is the easiest way to meet them. I even see them at the mall! They do separate themselves from the sinful aspects of our pop culture though. In recent years, many conservative denominations of all stripes are finding it harder to be engaged with the modern American culture and there is lots of mingling between these conservatives and that includes the Mennonites.
You might want to read 2 Cor. 6:14-18 and James 4:4. How did the earliest, common Christian writers outside the Bible understand these passages in practice? When Christians are not separate, they have no basis for calling others out of one place and into another. Becoming a Christian then just means having a status called “saved,” and maybe being a little nicer, but not being fundamentally transformed to the core. Christians are called to live as strangers and visitors on earth-necessarily in the world, but not part of it. (“Hiding” is not part of what you do in a country that is foreign to you, particularly if you are an ambassador there, but foreign ambassadors represent somewhere else. They are not at home.)
@@ReluctantPost I don't deny any of those things, yet the early Church was persecuted precisely for living amongst the pagans. They would have Churches right in the midst of cities and they were hated by the world. It's hard to be hated by the world, when one is so far removed from it that many do not interact with it. Jesus said no one hides a light, but puts it on display. Jesus says go into the world, which means every part even the darkest of places.
@@calvinpeterson9581 The early Christians were persecuted for not being part of their pagan society, actually, even while living in it. In fact, if I take the conversation in Octavius (Marcus Felix) along with those recorded by Justin Martyr and I ask myself, "What Christians today would be accused of the same things these first generations of Christians were accused of?", I think there are very, very few in countries like the US who ever could be. Some of the only people that come to mind are the spiritually-serious Amish and related conservative Mennonites. For example, when churches in the colonial US broadly supported slavery, they were opposed to it from the beginning and convinced the Quakers, who were prolific slaveholders, to reverse course when they were first arriving from Germany in the 1600's. The National Park Service still displays that first document from Germantown, PA opposing it. James Madison writes that it was the Mennonites and Quakers that refused official favors and supported the Founders' intent in the separation of church and state. The rest wanted favors, official status; in other words, compulsion in some form. What other Christians in the US have had their people die at the hands of the US Government, both in Leavenworth and Alcatraz, for refusing to participate in its wars? Some of the guides even include this stop as part of their tours given at Alcatraz now. If they weren't known in society or a witness, they wouldn't have suffered. (I have never been a member of their churches, but the older I have gotten and the more of the Evangelical world and its outcomes in families that I have experienced, the more I regret that.)
As an independent Baptist, I would like to contribute a sidenote regarding instruments in congregational singing: While we certainly do permit them, we generally try to stay conservative, allowing only a piano, an organ, and maybe an acoustic guitar. Electric instruments and drums are widely frowned upon.
@@claryp1509 Well I wasn't trying to be all-encompassing, every church is different. And even we allow for electric pianos, keyboards, organs, etcetera. It's mainly electric guitars that are discouraged due to their association with rock-and-roll. I ought to have been more specific I guess.
Yes I agree. We only have a piano and organ. A guest singer may show up with a guitar or a harmonica and that is fine. We have no hard rule against electric guitars and drums etc, I think it is more that they are unnecessary and a distraction to a congregation that prefers the older hymns that were not written for a rock band ensemble. I have visited more modern baptist churches that have modern praise music and it just isn't for me at all. They seem to be making a play for the youth but I like the old hymns that have stood the test of time. Newer music is fine for the youth to enjoy on a trip or retreat or whatever but I'm all for traditional old time hymns in the service. Not many instruments are needed to accompany them or they just drown out the voices of the congregation.
Roman/Byzantine Catholic Beliefs I agree with: 1. Sacred Traditions should be held. 2. Salvation is ongoing through the Church. 3. Baptism can use any method, but Believers Only! 4. Church Confessions, but optional. 5. Annotating the Sick, but Optional. 6. Salvation can be lost via future sin. 7. Saint Canonization & Saint Prayers. 8. Sacred Liturgy, Images & Relics. 9. A Church should have Apostolic Succession. 10. Apocrypha can be permissible. 11. Purgatory does exist. Do Mennonites/Amishmen agree with me? 1. Believer's Baptism Mandate, 2. Church Discipline & Ban Dissenters, 3. The Last Supper as an Ordinance, 4. Being Arminian, 5. Being Anti-Gay, 6. Casual Clothing in Churches, 7. Public Education should be a Parental Choice, 8. Divorce being sinful, but sorta disagree regarding Remarriage. (Only Remarriage via Death or Incarceration of Spouse, can be permitted). 9. Foot Washing, But Optional! 10. Holy Kiss, but for Opposite Gender & Optional! 11. Only Male Pastors, 12. Alcohol Consumption as Sinful! 13. Little to No Importance regarding Missions! Sounds like me & the Amish/Mennonites might get along somewhat!
I agree with others - the mennonites as far as I can tell have a lot of missions work. A group of mennonites were recently held hostage in Haiti. I couple I know met in Romania, and another in our church had gone to the Ukraine. Another family I know left their home in Virginia to do missions work in Puerto Rico. In fact, I think they consider the existence of the church I go to a mission lol.
Many people don't think Mennonites do missionary work because Mennonites do missionary work differently to other denominations. Other denominations send a couple of young men out to win converts and start churches. Mennonites send a few families out to build a church and start a daughter congregation in a new location for converts to join. In fertile ground the individual young men teams are more successful, in hard ground the Mennonite family groups are more successful.
@@broz1488 I think it's gotta always be more difficult when there's a long list of rules attached to the new church when you're mennonite. I can't do it! What do all the rules gain you? Here's the secret: nothing.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr the rules provide stability, a harmony and a unity that I don't see in modern Churches. For example, my great grandfather would feel as comfortable worshipping in the church with my generation as he did with his generation. I don't see this happening in modern churches where every generation makes changes to their music and worship format. I have also noticed working with Christian colleagues from other churches, that their lives are like a roller coaster ride in faith depending on their mood and external circumstances. I find that having rules provides me with a stability that is there irrespective of how I am feeling, keeping me from sin during moments of weak faith. The rules are not a burden for those raised in the faith, anymore than brushing ones teeth or washing ones hands before dinner are a burden to those raised with such rules. It is a way of life that just seems natural to one raised in it. But I can understand for one who has been raised for example to dress for the occasion, how it can be hard to dress for God irrespective of the occasion. It also is a liberty not to have to worry what type of dress the function or the occasion would require. Irrespective, for it's the same style of dress for everything. Most importantly for me is how the rules create a unity within the Church that is visible to the outsider, showing them that we are of one mind, of one spirit, of one faith. It is a visible 24/7/365 non verbal testimony of our faith to the unbeliever. We never have to verbally inform the unbeliever that we have committed our lives to God, they know that from 300 yards away where we stand. Modern Christian in public look no different from God hating atheists in their dress and lifestyles. They have lost their non verbal public testimony of faith to the unbeliever.
@@broz1488 The rules are not a burden for those raised in it, but an enormous burden for others. Giant wall. I wear the same skirt for every occasion and the same kind of shirt. I don't have to give any more thought than a mennonite to my clothes. Mennonites sure are of one mind. You're not allowed to have any thoughts that aren't from the mennonite culture. For example, they gave my family the whooping cough because no one thought to tell us. So I said, can you please let us know next time? NO NEVER HOW DARE YOU NOT SUBMIT TO OUR PERFECT WAYS. Ok bye.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr the Bible has put subtle obstacles in the way to separate the sheep from the goats. Those outsiders of a true heart seeking the Lord, will find comfort in the barriers that keep the goats out. It is after all the reason they wish to join the Church, to be free of the mad goat world. No wall is too high for a true believer seeking God. Whooping cough is a common childhood illness, you get it once and it's over, not a big issue.
I was wondering is you could present the beliefs of the Old German Baptist Brethren Church. The one I am thinking of has their headquarters in Modesto, California. (Maybe you already did this, but I don't know)?
Didnt the vast majority of Protestant churches require (or at least strongly encourage) the use of head coverings for women? Even Episcopalian women would colour-code their hats to the liturgical colour of the rector! For me, it seems right to stray on the side of doing too much and then be told by Paul when we get to heaven that the head coverings thing was just a local Corinthian thing and werent meant to be taken unversally. I'd rather be from a church that made that error than the flip side.
Another big difference is that to this day most Mennonites are related to one another either physically or by marriage. Look at any Mennonite bulletin or newsletter anywhere and you’ll see mostly Swiss-German surnames marrying one another such as Yoder, Kurtz, Stoltzfus, etc. Thats not just true for conservative Mennonites but for moderates as well. Mennonites are still largely an ethno-religious group.
I am a Mennonite and I have a Cornish surname. I have worshipped with Mennonites with Scottish, Dutch, Chinese, Laotian, English and Hispanic surnames. In one Mennonite Church I attended ethnic Mennonites were in the minority and former Catholics and Anglicans were active members of the congregation. This trend is starting to materialize in my present church. Also check out the growing number of Chinese Mennonite churches in existence here in Canada. I think many people would be flabbergasted at the number of black Mennonites there are in the world. There are approximately 250,000 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone.
It's hard to marry someone from outside the faith whose ethos on life is the opposite of yours. One group raises their children to put community first, the other group raises their children to put themselves first. Every decision a person makes is based on their primary ethos they were raised with. A divided house will not stand. Having a couple with two opposing world views, is going to be a bumpy marriage.
It's interesting to listen to this history from Protestant / Evangelical perspective. I never knew Switzerland was in the Netherlands before. 😊 The Swiss Brethren predate the seminal events in the Netherlands, the brotherly agreement in Bern being the very first in Anabaptist history in 1526. It was very simple and not Zwinglian in its doctrinal assumptions. The group of Zwingli's students dissenting from what they saw as his slowness in reforms in Zurich were the next to formally take shape, with an agreement written by Michael Sattler the following year. The Netherlands followed, the original leaders being of quite disparate beliefs in contrast to the remarkable simplicity and unity sustained in Bern. Menno Simons had to lend some kind of form and stability among the Dutch from his monastic training or the movement would probably have crumbled, the man who ordained him leaving the movement soon after. They held some, shall we say, "unusual" doctrines compared to the Swiss. The Bern agreement held for some 170 years before the formation and breaking off of the Amish. Being Mennonite today can mean almost anything one wishes, sort of like being Baptist and the rest of the Protestant smorgasbord. You just join the flavor (conference) that most suits the version of Christianity you prefer. The conservative Anabaptists that tend to preserve and develop the original restitutional aim of the Swiss, to live out early Christian values unchanged, are found in places like Sattler College in Boston (at the moment, anyway). Those who are mostly guardians of social justice and stand for little else can be found in Mennonite Church USA and their institutions. All of this was, of course, made possible by the doctrinal inventions and self-declarations of authority by Martin Luther (in contradiction to the Apostles) just a few years before these developments occurred. Like Zwingli, he was firmly in favor of having his theological enemies murdered. That part of the tradition of Rome was certainly adopted by these Reformers irrespective of Jesus' teachings. 2 Thess. 2:15; Jude 3-4
Sorry but most original conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites would view Sattler College as suspect in the least or at most as either wanna bee's or impostors.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 "Original" can have some curious meanings. Have you ever read the first Bern agreement? Does it sound like "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" today, or does it have quite a different emphasis? What was the first history of evangelism among them? Does it look like the last couple of centuries of "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" or does it look more like passionate engagement that one sees in places like Sattler? Is the average education level among the first Anabaptists nearer to average "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" now, or nearer to that expected at Sattler? (BTW, most conservative Mennonites I know don't consider themselves as separate from conservative Anabaptists.)
@@ReflectedMiles Just the last point. Conservative Mennonites coming from the Swiss and German (Palatinate) areas to eastern US centered in Pennsylvania may (though admitting to Anabaptism) often separate themselves from Anabaptists on two (related) levels: 1. Anabaptist includes Amish (I personally know of many Mennonites speaking derogatorily about Amish culturally and spiritually), Brethren, Hutterites, Brethren in Christ/River Brethren, and a few other smaller groups all of whom they prefer to disassociate with. 2. The two groups with Brethren in the above-mentioned are either descendants of or related to Pietism. The largest conservative Mennonite conference based out of the Mennonite heartland of Lancaster County Pennsylvania has had leaders speak about "Why we aren't Anabaptist " and the "Dangers of Pietism" in sermons at their youth Bible schools, Winter Bible Schools (winter version of an all age VBS), and Revivals. This group has three plus related groups in fellowship with them and at least that many descendant groups - not in fellowship with them who all have or may have some varied teaching warning about "Anabaptists" and "Pietists." Note: I don't agree with them on this and feel they improperly align what they are against with these groups by wrong association of terms (the definition of). All these groups mentioned above (being the core representation of conservative Mennonites) would be suspect or worse against Sattler College. I also don't agree with them on this. I would mention that in the last 40 years there has been an increase in people from non-Mennonite and non-Anabaptist backgrounds coming into these fellowships (mostly into revivalist groups where the individuals have left the traditional settings - sometimes for good reasons but other times because of that American indivualism) and new converts read the history and the documents and academically define doctrine and doctrinal intent, but for all practical purposes they are "rewriting" who the Mennonites and Anabaptists are and what they believe. Sort of like a western Christian in a modern evangelical Protestant church writing about persecuted Christians in Iran and India of the ancient churches and defining them as western evangelicals (likely one or another type of Oriental Orthodox) when they have never walked in their shoes... Note also that I believe the Mennonites/Anabaptists have lost a lot of their early zeal and have often become Mennocentric to the detriment of the faith including a loss of educated understanding including the apologetic reasoning and logic ability some of the early Anabaptist leaders had - Sattler, Simmons, Greble, et cetera.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 I don’t disagree with your summary except in the root concept of what constitutes “conservative” or “original.” For example, I interact daily with someone who would consider and call himself a conservative Lutheran. What he does _not_ mean by that is a preservation of what Luther taught and established on the whole-in fact, he finds many of those particulars repulsive. Instead, he combines the _solas_ of the Reformation with ideals that Fundamentalists hammer on as being “conservative,” and even what Republicans hold to be “conservative” politically, and this mish-mash I am supposed to think of as being conservative Lutheranism. I find this kind of thing common in many different denominations. There are large Baptist organizations who, confusingly, identify themselves as Anabaptist and conservative. (I think this even comes out in A Beka school curriculum.) In a relatively strict sense, then, a Holdeman would be a conservative Mennonite, exclusive of Anabaptist restitution, because Simons himself toured Europe excommunicating all the churches that disagreed with him in any significant way (and Obbe Philips, who ordained him, had abandoned the movement altogether). In the same way as my Lutheran friend, I have friends in another “conservative” Mennonite conference who are strongly Fundamentalist-leaning and also see that as more of their “conservative” credentials than an adherence to the first Anabaptist ideals that endured (the Swiss Brethren and Amish divide did not occur for some 170 years after the Bern agreement-by far the most stable, simple, and orthodox fruits in Anabaptist history). Few of them want to actually adopt the Menno-centric theology and fruits, and are more inclined to side with the incomplete distinction of the scholars in Zurich from Zwinglianism. I suppose in that respect, their strong flavor of Fundamentalist / Evangelical compromise could be seen as “original” but, like Menno et al, that was not what was originally enduring nor what those like Sattler gave their lives for. Whether these now have a right to be identified as “conservative” Anabaptists that are not preserving or restitutionalist in nature is another discussion. My original comment presumes they cannot reasonably be called that, by definition, just as I would never identify my friend’s positions as _Lutheran_ conservatism but as an American Fundamentalist conservatism in someone who happens to identify as Lutheran. I don’t doubt that his particular church would represent that as well.
As a Mennonite myself (although I'm young) I'd say it usually has to do with wanting to remain as seperate from the world as possible especially in the conservative churches. Many that do go on missions come back changed alot and may no longer fit in, and for the most conservative groups it's very difficult as some won't fly, can't drive, don't have cell phones ect... That makes things tough. I think that is changing with time but it's certainly not a strength.
Harken then thine ear unto the voice of Tradition, for I have not entered into thy life to replace the Scriptures, nor do I wish to. But I beseech thee that thou wouldst seek the word of the Lord, to see if I be based upon biblical principles or if I be sheer Tradition. Forthwith thou must know where I be from, for thou dost need to know the difference between the two. If I be but sheer Tradition, then ye must see Scripture and Tradition dwell together in unity. And if ye find that we may not, then remove me from thee. For I do not wan to withhold thee from the wisdom of God! But I would rather assist thee in abiding in it. -A. Random Lattin
Never really understood the idea of international mission. So much here to do or even Mexico or Canada . Everychurch,no matter what affiliate seems to stop at holiday food baskets. smh
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:13-15) In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [a]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12)
Not a lot, because NO PIANO allowed on the church. No guitars. My grandmother was one after marriage and my daughter inlaw grew up in the independent Baptist church. No MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS ARE ALLOWED in the church. No harp, nothing.
The difference is we Mennonites follow the scripture and get our doctrine and practice from the Bible while the IFB follow such false teachings of men as OSAS and premillennial dispensational eisegetical eschatology. Our ladies follow the scriptural directive to cover their heads while praying and prophesying while IFB women cut their hair, paint their faces and decorate their bodies with jewelry.
As a priest he never had yet read the Bible? That's not possible. Once a deacon, he would've been required to pray the hours, consisting nearly entirely of Holy Scripture, particularly the psalms. The rites of sacraments contain much (if not mostly) of Holy Scripture as well. If you're Catholic, you don't have to pick up the Bible because you're already reading it through the liturgy, the prayer of the Church. The protestants are the ones who threw God's Word away by encouraging studying it to each one's private & flawed interpretations-- to their own destruction.
Note what was said - he never read the Bible before becoming a priest or in his training to the priesthood. Not that he never read it as a priest. As GAMEO says "He did not read the Bible as such before his second year as a priest. Naturally he knew large sections of it, e.g., through the Roman missal."
What I don't understand about such groups and others is their believe in literalism. Jesus himself told us that he never spoke unless it was in parables. He gave examples but they were never inside information. I believe the Amish and Mennonites, Baptists, and several other churches believe that Jesus spoke LITERALLY but this is clearly not so because Jesus himself said that he always taught in parables. Sometimes he even had to explain his parables to some of his disciples. You really DO have to have the keys to his parables. The KEYS to the kingdom of heaven lie in unlocking the parables if you want to plumb the depths of his words. Otherwise, you get only the outward meaning, which isn't a bad thing. This is all some people can understand and that's okay.
Usually grace through faith. Not works based. But a Christian will live like a Christian - good. Many conservative Mennonites may object to Luther's "Solo" doctrines, so are more like the early church and hold the early orthodox theology.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 how much sin could one do before they lost salvation according to a Mennonite after they were born again. How much depends on me to maintain my salvation?
At their foundation, conservative Anabaptists rejected the novelties of the Reformation as much as they rejected the novelties of post-Nicene Rome, and Rome's deceiving impact on the Eastern Church as well, though I have found that many conservative Anabaptists see themselves as closer to the Eastern Church than to either Western stream. That's why both Roman rulers and Reformers murdered them, humble imitators of Jesus and the Apostles as they were. (???) So no, traditional Anabaptists of any kind would not accept _sola fide_ as it has no basis in the Scriptures or the apostolic Church. However, they certainly accept _sola gratia_ as that is just a re-statement of the most fundamental tenet of salvation in Christianity: that it is impossible for anyone of a fallen race in a fallen world to be inherently worthy of, or to earn, their salvation. That does not change the Scripture's explicit statement that a man is *not* justified by faith alone (James 2:24; Martin Luther detested this book of the New Testament for its statements contrary to his gospel). "This is a faithful saying: 'For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.'"
@@jamesskinner1902 any amount of unconfessed sin will keep you out of heaven. is how most churches would teach. and when i say unconfessed i mean any sin you haven't dealt with between you an God you don't have to confess before the church.
@@jamesskinner1902 Mennonites would not quickly try to analyze "how MUCH sin could one do..." Mennonites are not Calvinist or Augustinian. But also not pure Arminian. They would be closer to "Wesleyan Arminian." Their definition of sin, et cetra. It is interesting to note that the Methodist circuit rider, Francis Asbury would at times travel and co preach with a Mennonite preacher especially in Virginia. I feel that may be why the Mennonites in Virginia have a more episcopalian form of Church government. This closeness to Wesleyan Arminian theology would be why Mennonites often prefer Adam Clark's Commentary and Whedon's Commentary - Methodist. On "how much depends on me to maintain my salvation" - this would be a problematic statement to a Mennonite. They would believe Salvation is freely offered to all versus "election" and would not believe in the "preserverance of the saints" as in "once saved, always saved." However, they do not believe it "depends on me" "to maintain my salvation." Mennonites would say that Jesus Christ and His shed Blood maintains our salvation, but that a Christian would respond with love and faithfulness to Christ, not to earn or maintain Salvation, but because this is the natural outflowing of a changed heart and direction. Again closer to the Wesleyan definitions. Note: Mennonites are not typically in the "second work of grace" camp of modern Phoebe Palmer conservative Wesleyan holiness churches. They are fine with sanctification with consecrations and dedications and also coming under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but not with two instantaneous works of grace or the presumption of the "eradication" of the "sin nature." Hope I didn't lose you or anyone else reading. Be aware also that there are almost as many kinds of Mennonites as Baptists. PS. Mennonites are the core Anabaptist descendants, but many continental Baptists (often found in Fundamental Bible believing Baptists) also have Anabaptist decent. Watch the Documentary "Being Baptist" on RUclips put out by Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento.
A good way to describe the word Eschatology in athism is the phrase, "Is it live, or is it leader tape." Most religions put some sort of binary event way at the end of Side A on the 9-track stored program recording tape...in atheism...it just runs out of magnetic surface...kind of like an aluminum wire recorder. (Aluminum will not retain a magnetic field).
Until 9:21 that's when you are making a-capella human synthesizer sounds and discover how to use the filter as a pitch source....It's LegionWave 1978 Roman Gladiator times...anyone for some Tangerine Dream-Bent Cold Sidewalk?
This focuses on differences in practice as if Mennonites were just another Protestant denomination. It does not look at the fundamental difference between the Anabaptist roots of Mennonites and the Protestant roots of Independent Baptists. At the heart of all their differences are some radically different understandings of the mission and message of Jesus.
Very interesting take. I agree with it mostly I think. You'll get some pushback from the more conservative IFB groups that they trace their lineage all the way back to the "first church that Jesus established". This claimed lineage includes waldenses, anabaptists, etc. That they take as their own.
Very very few if any independent Baptists today hold to any old creeds or confessions. Those were mainly from groups that are part of denominations today like the American Baptists, etc.
He's talking about Independent Baptists. These would be non denominational, non-subscribing churches, that follow a "fundamental" sola scriptora theology in the Baptist tradition.
@@BaoYili Since "independent Baptist" is identifiable, and even has a common name to distinguish it, it meets the definition of a denomination. It is a peculiar division or subset of Christianity. My step-grandmother was one, and she provided hours of entertainment going round-and-round with her friends from the Church of Christ on that and other issues, since they also claim to be "non-denominational" but she sure didn't want others to put her in their "pigeonhole" with the same claim (trying to avoid the term "denomination," since that would make her church one, too). 😉
@@ReflectedMiles Being "identifiable" with a "common name" is not the definition of a denomination. By that definition any group with a label for themselves is a denomination. A denomination, by definition is a unified collective of congregations (churches) - not independent churches with similar beliefs. To quote the Merriam Webster dictionary, a denomination is "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices."
@@danielboggs2013 You forgot to note that your definition is the 4th in the queue of predominance in the Merriam-Webster, and it is in 5th place in the most widely recognized authority of the English language, the OED. Even if we hold rigidly to the 5th most common usage rather than conceding any other part of the definition, the OED still makes an organization or collective unnecessary to the definition but only _the most common_ reference, defining the term as, "A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name." The peculiar local flavor of "Baptist" or "Independent Baptist," etc., has little bearing on the ready identification of the sect. That is sometimes true within churches where they have a denominational organization that is embraced as well. "A collection of individuals classed together under the same name"... It first happened at Antioch but has happened countless thousands of times from the 16th century on, especially, as theology and pulpits were prized more and more and the Body of Christ less and less. I once did a little exercise in a city in the Midwest, highly churched, where on one of the main streets through town there were multiple churches and quite a number of them bearing at least one major name in common. I decided to see if those with the same name on the door, in part, were in fellowship with one another. Most of them were not even in communication with one another, let alone in fellowship. At best, the minister of this one knew the minister of the other one half a mile away, or used to.
13:22 Chevy brand church...membership sinks...Like A Rock. The trend these days is not to take the 'Live Action Role Play Dress Up And Be Holy' game so seriously now. I for one believe religion is useful if it is fun. Fun is the meaning of life. Without fun there is a cold empty eternal nothingness.
People usually just end up accepting the monikers that are thrust upon them by others. For example, Luther was outraged that people were being called, or accepting the identification, of “Lutheran.” His outrage, however, has changed nothing internally or externally in that respect. Most Mennonite groups and history have little, if anything, to do with Menno Simons. The name is still used as a distinctive from the 20,000+ other denominations, non-denominations, and other groups in Christendom. I don’t know of any set of churches that isn’t subjected to this. Every one of them has to be identified somehow. Call yourself “Disciples” and knowledgeable people immediately associate that as “Campbellite.” There is no escape, unfortunately, just as with many other consequences of sin.
Hello, Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 KJV The bible says that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins and that it saves us. Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16. The bible teaches that when a person receives the gift of the Holy Ghost that it will be manifested by speaking in other toungues (real languages that you have never learned). Acts 2:4, Mark 16:17, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6 etc. Born of water = water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Born of the Spirit = receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in new toungues. The NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is JESUS CHRIST. Matthew 28:19=Acts 2:38 If you were baptized under the titles Father, Son, Holy Ghost then you were baptized wrong. You must be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ like we are commanded in Acts 2:38. If you wanna be saved and enter into the kingdom of God then you must obey Acts 2:38. Mennonites and Baptist's do not believe that speaking in toungues is for today. Mennonites and Baptist's do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. That means that mennonites and Baptist's have not obeyed Acts 2:38. That means that mennonites and Baptist's are not born of water and of the Spirit. That means that mennonites and Baptist's are not Christians because they have not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38. The new testament started on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Ghost was poured out. The new testament way of salvation that the apostles preached was: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38 For it is written: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5
@AWAKEN There are no three persons mentioned in 1John 5:7, The only person mentioned therein, is God. That is why John wrote, "and these three are one". The Father = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . The Word = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 1:1 - the Word was God) The Holy Ghost = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 14:8-11 - Jesus said that the Holy Ghost is the Father)
@AWAKEN No sir, the bible says: "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracle's of God" 1Peter 4:11. Nowhere does it say that God is three persons. The only Holy Spirit is God the Father, for God is Holy (Psalms 99:9) and he is a Spirit (John 4:24). Matthew 10:20, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Mark 13:11, "...but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." There is only ONE Spirit; Eph 4:4 ONE Lord; Eph 4:5 Now the Lord is that Spirit. 2Corinthians 3:17 God is ONE. Dueteronomy 6:4 God is not a man. Numbers 23:19 The Son of God is a man. 1Tim 2:5 God is a Spirit. John 4:24 The Son of God is not a Spirit. Luke 24:39 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Tim 2:5 ========================== Jesus said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God", John 17:3 According to Jesus the only true God is his Father. Paul says: "But to us there is but one God, the Father," 1Corinthians 8:6. Jesus and Paul both did not believe in the trinity. The only God that Jesus and Paul knew was God the Father.
@Tyler Woodturning The thief on the cross lived and died during the time of the old testament. The new testament began on the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Acts chapter 2. ( This was written of in Leviticus 23:15-17 ) and is recorded for us in the book of Acts chapter 2. The thief on the cross (being in the loins of his forefathers) was baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1Corinthians 10:1-2 KJV) Sea and cloud = water and spirit Also Jesus was baptized to fulfill all rightousness.
@Tyler Woodturning Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James KJV.
@Tyler Woodturning In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 2Thess 1:8-9 KJV All those who do not obey the gospel Acts 2:38 shall be punished with everlasting destruction.
Baptists and Mennoniten are synonyms. Same words in two different Indo languages. You could say John the Baptist or Johannes de Doper, or Johannes de Täufer or Johannes de Mennonite.👍 You could do the dame with Menno Simons 👍
Divorce is only sinful if you believe a former drug addict is sinful...marriage is the C&S Church & State's original recreational drug. Don't start it, and you won't have to quit...but if you are still using, you should be treated like a human being until you get off the stuff...then just be able to have a peaceful normal life thereafter,
You seem to deviate from you usual presentation structure here. Do you want to avoid a little box saying BAPTIST KILL IN WARS ? Guilty conscience? Jesus did not teach war, or stoning to death. His teachings were radically new.
There are Baptists that serve in the military. That isn't saying they promote killing. They just believe in service to their country. We go to a Baptist church. There is a wall in our hall that has a cork board with updates on our military and missionary members.
@@Tanya_loudestgarden Jesus said that we are to resist not evil. Serving your country by going into another country with a machine gun cocked and loaded is indeed promoting killing.
You conveniently left out the rather large number of anabaptists you predecessors… John Calvin and co. Killed. They do not hold to OSAS ( which is unscriptural)
Very good presentation and a lot of information. As a Mennonite though I have to correct you on one point. We are not pacifists we are Non-resistant. There is a difference and almost every Mennonite will hold to this.
Thanks Sandra for your clarification. I found this pdf online - would you consider it a good description of the difference?
www.anabaptistmennonites.net/index_htm_files/PacifismOrNonResistance.pdf
@ready to harvest Yes, I have used that exact PDF to help explain the difference
Explain why your privileged no tax and best land and do not fight for the promise land .Is Ancient Covenant people mean anything to you?
@@ReadyToHarvest I had never understood the difference before. Thank you for sharing.
Could you sum up the difference between the two - in your words?
This is incredible. Very informative. Very well spoken and unbiased. Thank you for the video. Really appreciate it!
Thanks Salinda. Feel free to let me know if you are looking for a video on a certain denomination. I am always open to new ideas.
@@ReadyToHarvestI am still searching for a denominational home. To that end, I would find it helpful to know yours. If so, thank you very much. God bless you.
Great video. I'm a direct descendant of Swiss Mennonite leader Christian Stauffer. After being exiled to Germany, they eventually made their way to Lancaster. I've heard Mennonites described as the Charismatics of the reformation.
From what I understand I'm descended from some Huguenots. A Herman von Outring/Vautrin who knew Martin Luther.
I was raised Independent Fundamental Baptist and have always wondered what the difference’s were between baptists and Mennonite and even Amish. I’ve known a handful of members from my church who have made the switch from Baptist to Amish, although this was just the difference’s between Baptist and Mennonite, I really never knew the differences between the two groups. This was very informative, thank you for making this video.
Pulse Width Modulation is your friend here. By rapidly toggling between 2 spiritual knob settings, such as I. Baptist and Mennonite 1.0, you can have a fine level of the mixture of how much you want of each faith by varying the chronological duty cycle.
Are you still Independent Fundamental Baptist?
Good job on your presentation. For just 15 minutes you include a lot of info..
That was really well done! I am impressed by how you did that. (I'm ind. Baptist).
I grew up in Mennonite country... we had horse and buggy parking at the mall.
Very interesting. Some of my ancestors, and myself included, were an interesting combination of Conservative Mennonite and C&MA influence. I currently attend a Conservative Mennonite Church but still hold to the more charismatic and higher Christian Life leanings and interpretations of the C&MA. Joseph Ramseyer, my a distant uncle of mine was the spiritual founder of the "Missionary Church". This movement blossomed after his ministry in the Defenseless Mennonite Church was revoked after he was re-baptized by immersion at a C&MA conference. Your videos are very insightful.
Muchos bautistas como fue mi caso, terminan por abrazar algún brazo de los menonitas. Yo creo que esto es debido a que entre los Bautistas se menciona mucho el anbaptismo del siglo XVI como el surgimiento de la denominacion, aunque estrictamente está denominacion, solo fue influenciada por dicho movimiento Menonita/Huterita/Amish en algunas cuestiones pero su surgimiento vino desde los separatistas en la iglesia Anglicana.
As a non practicing CofE I am aware of the Amish through movies and TV, and have seen the word Mennonite, Anabaptist etc., but have no idea what they me meant or believed. Thank you for your clear and structured explanation of what, from the outside, seems to be a very complicated history.
This is an incredible and very detailed presentation! Thank you!
Very accurate speaking as a life long IFB. Perseverance of the saints, eternal security, once saved always saved, and the various Armenian and catholic beliefs on losing salvation and apostasy need a video.
Thank you for sharing this. I was raised as a Catholic (in that I attended Catholic schools). However did not stay a practicing Catholic into adulthood. I’ve been researching my family history. Found out there are some Lutherans and Baptist’s. Was trying to understand what this was like. As a middle aged mother I do like to live a conservative simple living permaculture way of life. Seems that I am drawn to The Mennonite way of living. I didn’t really know much about Anabaptists until very recently. Interesting to learn about the European roots of Australian Mennonites.
There are other ways, to live simply. Once you get in, they make it impossible to get out
Hopefully you’ll reunify with the Catholic Church. Will be praying for you and your family. 🙏
Read the Scriptures - they contradict the Roman Catholic beliefs on purgatory, transubstantion, the Mass as a real sacrifice for sins offered by 'priests,' the bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church, etc.
I recommend you read gospel of John, The letter to Romans and esp Hebrews which contradict the idea of the Mass - as only Christ can offer a true sacrifice for sins on the cross - one High Priest, One Sacrifice, and one offering, and completed - He sat down, and He said it is Finished. Christians only offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving [which is ehat eucharist means], sacrifices of their bodies as living sacrifices of holiness and doing good works. The only literal sacrifice for sins that propitation of the wrath of God for out sin is the death of Christ on the cross - he was crucified between two thieves. The sacrifice isnt being continued or offered by mere human creatures [roman priests] and God doesnt need to be reminded of His Son's finished sacrifice. Only Christ is the lamb of god who takes away sins, and him Alone. He is God, and truly human. The Scriptures also in1 corinthians 11 call it bread multiple times, while roman Catholic say we must reject our senses and believe there is 'no bread.' But Jesus rose physically from the dear and they SAW he had flesh and bones and sae him eat fish and touch his wounds. But if our senses arent trustworthy, then this undermines the Resurection of Christ. Also claiming that jesus true human body is in Heaven and also in every Roma. Catholic church undermines his true humanity, as a true human body is only in only place. Saying its a miracle doesnt work, since God can do all things but not contradictions, and it contradicts Jesus true humanity and the evidence of the Resureection of Jesus Christ. Roman catholics are required to believe that it only looks like bread but is 'no bread' when Scripture says its bread many times. And Christ physical body, as a true human body, cannot literally be in many places at the same time. And without transubstantion, the Mass cannot be a literal Sacrifice for Sins that appeases God's Wrath, which is the purpose of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Which is impossible because only Christ id a true Priest and without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness, and once sins are forgiven, there is no longer any offering. Read Hebrews carefully and believe it.
Menno did have a serious error, which the other Reformers did not have - He didnt believe jesus true humanity came from His mother, the blessed virgin Mary. That is completely wrong, as thr bible says Jesus was descended from King David and was truly human from Mary. His humanity didnt come from heaven as some think and Mary wasnt just a pipe through which jesus passed. Jesus is truly God, and added humanity to His Divinity from Mary. Lutherans, Reformed, anglicans, even Roman catholics reject menno's weird ideas on Jesus humanity.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 That's because the Catholic Church isn't Sola Scriptura (scripture alone). They'll tell you this if you ask. They'll say they give just as much credence to the leaders of the church and Catholic writers of old as they do scripture itself. That's why they can justify pergutory, praying to Mary and Saints, etc. To say to a Catholic "your beliefs aren't backed up by scripture" is a total waste of time because they don't view scripture as the only ultimate authority
@@blakeedmondson9573 they don't accept Scripture, but they should. Because Scripture is God's Word, the Spirit goes with the Word and changes hearts. Also, their beliefs are self contradictory because they claim to affirm Scripture in some sense yet reject what Scripture teaches.
Regarding foot washing, some independent Baptist churches do practice it. My former church was independent missionary Baptist and practiced foot washing. The church I currently pastor is "United Baptist" but would be much closer to being Independent than the classic United group. We still practice foot washing. Some of the most wonderful, humbling, Spirit-filled services I've ever been in are foot washing.
Very informative video! Being that I am a Baptist minister, I have something to add, many of us do practice anointing of the sick with oil as well as washing of the saints feet during our lords supper services. Although not all of us do it is worth mentioning that those of us among the more conservative congregations do.
Aren't the foot washers mainly Primitive Baptist?
How do you find conservative Baptists? It used to be that I knew Baptists where the ladies and girls did not cut or trim their hair (see book by John R Rice, "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Woman Preachers ") and they only wore dresses or skirts. They didn't use or listen to worldly music (listen to Frank Garlock at Bob Jones).
@@johnphillips2396 i thought only methodists did this ??
Yes, my Dad is in an IFB church and when he got cancer he asked the pastor to anoint him with oil and the elders and pastor prayed over him, he is currently in remission so it worked. Praise God.
@@kianafarr6602 if this is true then why didnt this make the news and cancer patients lining up down the street for miles?? Great if it is true.. But hard to believe cancer can be fully cured without proper treatment by anointing oil.
The mennonite church I attend doesn't have insurance because they're supposed to rely on the church not the government. They have their own, cheaper, health insurance, like Samaritan Ministries. Also, they told me it's related to not having to pay social security taxes.
Thanks bro. Great video. Didn’t know much about our Mennonite siblings.
I like what our pastor said about jewelry and makeup, if the barn needs painted you paint it.
Are you a barn or made by God the way you are?
@David Chupp, stained by sin we are corruptions of God's original design.
@@davidchupp4460 You won't take that too far or logic might make you not ever trim your hair, bathe, etc... There is a general consensus among "pretty much everyone" when makeup on someone makes them look "cheap" and when it looks nice and professional or just natural. If you're not a woman, then you can't really know how much better you can feel if you know you look your best.
@@beckypetersen2680 look I’m not saying it’s wrong. However we can also be dissatisfied and be looking for approval from others when in all actuality their opinion means nothing. We should look to God for approval not man. I know lots of Ladies who don’t use makeup who’s spirit of love joy and peace make them more attractive than any lady with a pretty face. Real men know what’s important.
So he was saying that makeup and jewelry is only for ugly women, to hide their ugliness.
The only correction I can speak to as independent baptist would be we do recognize foot washing as biblical we just seldom practice it. I have seen it happen once only but spoken of many times. Also, we do use annointing oil. Our preacher used it on our son when he was an infant and was having trouble breathing.
Interesting video. MC USA has a "sister" conference here in Canada, MCC (Mennonite Church Canada). Especially in SK, many Mennonites are moderate or modernized (such as myself), and are therefore indistinguishable from Evangelical groups. The more conservative groups are known as Colony Mennonites, and even they have modernized slightly. The most conservative group here would be Hutterites, and there is not really much of an Amish presence here.
MCC has been declining as many Mennonite congregations go independent or form smaller "conferences" because of our holding/agreement with conservative groups theologically. The stance which MCC has taken is viewed as "worldly" by many congregations.
Essentially, in our area, most Mennonite congregations carry some traditional theological views, but do not hold to the old cultural views (as stated, indistinguishable from Evangelical groups). We base our faith and views on what the Bible says, not the world or even the mainstream Churches.
Still nice to see information spread to those who may be uninformed about the Anabaptists.
Also, and very importantly, we believe in the one Church. Denominations easily become barriers, and I would rather be known as a child of God and a follower of Jesus before a Mennonite.
Hey, a fellow SK Mennonite on RUclips! I did find his generalizations of Mennonites to be about old colony Mennonites and not consistent with my experience. I feel Mennonites here look more like the independent Baptists he described.
Actually, the denomination should be referred to as MC Canada, as MCC refers to the Mennonite Central Committee, which is the charity organization for international relief work (and historically has helped Mennonites flee war)
Absolutely great research. Thank you!!!!
I belong to the Church of God in Christ Mennonite or Holderman and we actually do quite a bit of worldwide missionary work
Thank you for this calm and detailed exposition. May I, as a Independent Baptist preacher, make a few points.
While Independent Baptists do not hold to a world-wide denomination as The Church, we do hold to the universal, invisible organism which is The Church; the Body of Christ to which all born again by the Spirit, children of God (John 1:14) belong.
Secondly, the practice and exercise of Church Discipline in independent churches is very difficult when a person who has been disciplined can go down the road to another Independent church, and probably, sadly, because we are so dominated by numbers and income, be accepted there. It's difficult to believe that in Paul's day, when all churches were independent and local, (while still being taught directly and indirectly by the Apostles), the same template may not also have prevailed. Paul's teaching on the subject in Corinthians is specific to the sins of that church and its membership, not all the churches, and also counselled the retention of disciplined people within the church following their repentance and making of restitution. Today we need to be as quick to forgive as we often are to condemn. In addition, Paul's rules were to apply to sin, not to failure to observe a man-made set of rules upon which a congregation might be based.
Thirdly, 'membership' of local churches in the New Testament is observed to have been based on no ceremony or 'signing off' of a statement of faith or subscription to dress code or the like; the members of the Body of Christ were welcomed by other gatherings of the Body of Christ. I should add that no such thing as a 'closed table' of communion appears in Acts, or in the teaching on communion in the Epistles (not suggesting that that is the case with the Mennonites, by the way). Attendance at the Lord's Table was commanded, a right attitude was counselled, and we are warned not to trifle with this, one of the only two practices of the Church commanded by Jesus.
May God bless yo as you continue to hold up a light in a dark place..
Thank you Paul. I appreciate you adding some additional firsthand information.
To be clear, some Independent Baptists do not believe in any Universal Invisible Church. I emphasize that it's only some. Here's an example: www.historicbaptist.org/docs/EIGHT%20ILL%20EFFECTS%20OF%20PROMOTING%20THE%20UNIVERSAL%20CHURCH%20FALLACY.pdf
@@ReadyToHarvest Fair point, "baptist' is probably as broad a 'church' as it's possible to have. As any group which encompasses new-comers (as opposed to people growing up in it), people bring their theological baggage as well as their emotional and experiential baggage with them, and that results in some interesting diversity, to say the least. I grew up as an evangelical street preacher, and I have brought my perspectives from that to my ministry; if people say they are born again and, as my old preacher dad used to say, on their way to heaven and dead sure of getting there, I welcome them. Time will tell how real their experience and testimony is, in the mean time, I preach the Word, and am instant in season and out of season. Again, God bless you as you serve Him; I doubt we'll even meet here, but I look forward to seeing 'way up in glory land'.
@@ReadyToHarvest I think the Independent Baptist Church that I go to believes in the Universal Body of Christ. I guess all their Churches are different. They call me up on "zoom" conferences to pray 🙏 for people, so they must think I'm saved. (I'm not a "legal" member. I just attend there).
Back in the time of Jesus, most roads were not paved. Washing His friends feet, He was doing a servant's job. What I think by what He meant by that is that we should take care of each other.
Great comparison! As a Mennonite and member of a CMC church I would only correct you on one thing besides the non-resistant/pacifist topic. There are a lot of missionaries and missions within the Mennonite Church. Look up Rosedal Mennonite Missions, the mission branch of the CMC and also CAM, Christian Aid Ministries. They are the ones that had the group recently kidnapped in Haiti. Also would love to see and know the difference in local service? Mennonites have MDS, Mennonite Disaster Service, that sends groups from all churches to do service projects across the US and other countries. Do independent baptists have something similar? Great video!
I grew up in independent Baptist church and went to one of the seminaries. Independent Baptist can be very conservative but come from a completely different background than Mennonites. In the early 1900’s J Frank Norris split from the southern Baptist, due to signs of liberalism, and created the IBC. They were not from ani Baptist but from the southern Baptist, who were originally Calvinist.
the mennonite church i am attending does concentrate on local needs but most of the people are returned missionaries from Belize and Liberia
I started going on a bus to an Independent Baptist Church around 1960 at 7 years of age. Here 60 years later I am still in regular attendance ( 3 times weekly plus visitation and passing out tracts and witnessing as men are street preaching). By what you said , mostly I have been attending CONSERVATIVE Independent Baptist Churches for the past 60+ years . KJV preached and quoted by most members , strong stand on modest dress ( but no one shunned if they don't adhere). My sons 😢😢😢😢 no longer attend church ( Romans 14:12). My preacher husband has been deceased 14 years.😢 I just love my church friends and family!!!! But "Even so, come LORD JESUS "!!!!!🎉
As a Mennonite, I have only one objection to this video: the church I attend (EMC) is in fact involved in missions and has upwards of 20 members serving currently
Hello,
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 KJV
The bible says that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins and that it saves us. Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16.
The bible teaches that when a person receives the gift of the Holy Ghost that it will be manifested by speaking in other toungues (real languages that you have never learned). Acts 2:4, Mark 16:17, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6 etc.
Born of water = water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Born of the Spirit = receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in new toungues.
The NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is JESUS CHRIST. Matthew 28:19=Acts 2:38
If you were baptized under the titles Father, Son, Holy Ghost then you were baptized wrong. You must be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ like we are commanded in Acts 2:38.
If you wanna be saved and enter into the kingdom of God then you must obey Acts 2:38.
Mennonites do not believe that speaking in toungues is for today.
Mennonites do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.
That means that mennonites have not obeyed Acts 2:38.
That means that mennonites are not born of water and of the Spirit.
That means that mennonites are not Christians because they have not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38.
The new testament started on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Ghost was poured out. The new testament way of salvation that the apostles preached was: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38
For it is written: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5
@@timl5282 I disagree. You’re making a lot of assumptions about Mennonites, and I don’t think those passages mean what you think they mean
@@karmenfriesen2681 I used to be a old colony Mennonite but now I am a Christian. Did you know that there are no Mennonites in the bible?
There are no denominations in the bible.
Jesus only has one church and it's called by his name "The church of Jesus Christ".
Act 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16 Every baptism performed in the new testament was done in the name of Jesus.
Nobody was baptized in the titles Father,Son,Holy Ghost.
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus. Colossians 3:17
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12
@@timl5282 So you don't believe in the Trinity?
@@karmenfriesen2681 Here's what the bible says:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Timothy 2:5
One God plus one man does not equal three persons.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3
Jesus said that his Father is the only true God. That means that there can be no trinity.
Paul said: "But to us there is but one God, the Father" 1Corinthians 8:6
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Dueteronomy 6:4
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" Isaiah 45:5
There is no trinity in the bible. The doctrine of the trinity came from the catholic church who borrowed it from paganism.
Have you done a video on German Baptists? I have not found one and would be very interested in it.
The only thing I have is I do mention them a little bit in this video: ruclips.net/video/ys2wJsiV0zI/видео.html
@@ReadyToHarvest Thank you.
@@ReadyToHarvest If you get to German Baptists, I would be willing to be textual content proof reader. Could do the same for some Mennonite or other Anabaptist topics. And i am always interested in learning more about various Baptists especially those who are most conservative in practice.
I would also like information on Baptist Bible colleges and a comparison - Masters, Heartland, West Coast, Crown, Maranatha, Pensacola, and Bob Jones..!!!
Thank you for the explicit differentiation among doctrines held by various denominations. I suspect most believers who seriously seek to know God must acknowledge a core set of foundational doctrines with respect and grace for all other doctrinal differences. Heard one explain no one fully understands, all denominations have errors. Some errors are trivial, others more grievous. Vigorous debate is fine. Stick to scriptures exclusively. Season with grace. But splitting, rejecting or excommunication for any but most profound, core doctrines is wrong, wrong wrong!
If Mennonites were not so strict into separation, I would agree with their doctrine. Yet scripture doesn't teach Christains should separate themselves from the world, for how can a person shine their light when their light is hidden out of sight?
I live amongst Mennos here in WPA. They aren't as separatist as many think they are. The reason that folks misinterpret them is because you don't see them at ball games, movies, restaurants and such but they are easy to mingle with in work settings which is the easiest way to meet them. I even see them at the mall! They do separate themselves from the sinful aspects of our pop culture though. In recent years, many conservative denominations of all stripes are finding it harder to be engaged with the modern American culture and there is lots of mingling between these conservatives and that includes the Mennonites.
You might want to read 2 Cor. 6:14-18 and James 4:4. How did the earliest, common Christian writers outside the Bible understand these passages in practice? When Christians are not separate, they have no basis for calling others out of one place and into another. Becoming a Christian then just means having a status called “saved,” and maybe being a little nicer, but not being fundamentally transformed to the core. Christians are called to live as strangers and visitors on earth-necessarily in the world, but not part of it. (“Hiding” is not part of what you do in a country that is foreign to you, particularly if you are an ambassador there, but foreign ambassadors represent somewhere else. They are not at home.)
@@ReluctantPost
I don't deny any of those things, yet the early Church was persecuted precisely for living amongst the pagans. They would have Churches right in the midst of cities and they were hated by the world. It's hard to be hated by the world, when one is so far removed from it that many do not interact with it. Jesus said no one hides a light, but puts it on display. Jesus says go into the world, which means every part even the darkest of places.
@@calvinpeterson9581 The early Christians were persecuted for not being part of their pagan society, actually, even while living in it. In fact, if I take the conversation in Octavius (Marcus Felix) along with those recorded by Justin Martyr and I ask myself, "What Christians today would be accused of the same things these first generations of Christians were accused of?", I think there are very, very few in countries like the US who ever could be. Some of the only people that come to mind are the spiritually-serious Amish and related conservative Mennonites. For example, when churches in the colonial US broadly supported slavery, they were opposed to it from the beginning and convinced the Quakers, who were prolific slaveholders, to reverse course when they were first arriving from Germany in the 1600's. The National Park Service still displays that first document from Germantown, PA opposing it. James Madison writes that it was the Mennonites and Quakers that refused official favors and supported the Founders' intent in the separation of church and state. The rest wanted favors, official status; in other words, compulsion in some form. What other Christians in the US have had their people die at the hands of the US Government, both in Leavenworth and Alcatraz, for refusing to participate in its wars? Some of the guides even include this stop as part of their tours given at Alcatraz now. If they weren't known in society or a witness, they wouldn't have suffered. (I have never been a member of their churches, but the older I have gotten and the more of the Evangelical world and its outcomes in families that I have experienced, the more I regret that.)
As an independent Baptist, I would like to contribute a sidenote regarding instruments in congregational singing: While we certainly do permit them, we generally try to stay conservative, allowing only a piano, an organ, and maybe an acoustic guitar. Electric instruments and drums are widely frowned upon.
I’m African American and my African American IFB church has electric instruments. I even play my clarinet in worship services from time to time.
@@claryp1509 Well I wasn't trying to be all-encompassing, every church is different. And even we allow for electric pianos, keyboards, organs, etcetera. It's mainly electric guitars that are discouraged due to their association with rock-and-roll. I ought to have been more specific I guess.
Yes I agree. We only have a piano and organ. A guest singer may show up with a guitar or a harmonica and that is fine. We have no hard rule against electric guitars and drums etc, I think it is more that they are unnecessary and a distraction to a congregation that prefers the older hymns that were not written for a rock band ensemble. I have visited more modern baptist churches that have modern praise music and it just isn't for me at all. They seem to be making a play for the youth but I like the old hymns that have stood the test of time. Newer music is fine for the youth to enjoy on a trip or retreat or whatever but I'm all for traditional old time hymns in the service. Not many instruments are needed to accompany them or they just drown out the voices of the congregation.
I'm an IFB Christian and find this to be very trustworthy as a reference. Very good presentation
Have you done anything on the Hutterites?
Roman/Byzantine Catholic Beliefs I agree with:
1. Sacred Traditions should be held.
2. Salvation is ongoing through the Church.
3. Baptism can use any method, but Believers Only!
4. Church Confessions, but optional.
5. Annotating the Sick, but Optional.
6. Salvation can be lost via future sin.
7. Saint Canonization & Saint Prayers.
8. Sacred Liturgy, Images & Relics.
9. A Church should have Apostolic Succession.
10. Apocrypha can be permissible.
11. Purgatory does exist.
Do Mennonites/Amishmen agree with me?
1. Believer's Baptism Mandate,
2. Church Discipline & Ban Dissenters,
3. The Last Supper as an Ordinance,
4. Being Arminian,
5. Being Anti-Gay,
6. Casual Clothing in Churches,
7. Public Education should be a Parental Choice,
8. Divorce being sinful, but sorta disagree regarding Remarriage. (Only Remarriage via Death or Incarceration of Spouse, can be permitted).
9. Foot Washing, But Optional!
10. Holy Kiss, but for Opposite Gender & Optional!
11. Only Male Pastors,
12. Alcohol Consumption as Sinful!
13. Little to No Importance regarding Missions!
Sounds like me & the Amish/Mennonites might get along somewhat!
This is the most agreement in any of the videos in this series so far, except for maybe SBC. Quite interesting.
2:49 This is where "I swear *or affirm"* comes from when testifying in court.
10:33 Reject electricity, but have a website?
I agree with others - the mennonites as far as I can tell have a lot of missions work. A group of mennonites were recently held hostage in Haiti. I couple I know met in Romania, and another in our church had gone to the Ukraine. Another family I know left their home in Virginia to do missions work in Puerto Rico. In fact, I think they consider the existence of the church I go to a mission lol.
Many people don't think Mennonites do missionary work because Mennonites do missionary work differently to other denominations.
Other denominations send a couple of young men out to win converts and start churches.
Mennonites send a few families out to build a church and start a daughter congregation in a new location for converts to join.
In fertile ground the individual young men teams are more successful, in hard ground the Mennonite family groups are more successful.
@@broz1488 I think it's gotta always be more difficult when there's a long list of rules attached to the new church when you're mennonite. I can't do it! What do all the rules gain you? Here's the secret: nothing.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr the rules provide stability, a harmony and a unity that I don't see in modern Churches.
For example, my great grandfather would feel as comfortable worshipping in the church with my generation as he did with his generation. I don't see this happening in modern churches where every generation makes changes to their music and worship format.
I have also noticed working with Christian colleagues from other churches, that their lives are like a roller coaster ride in faith depending on their mood and external circumstances.
I find that having rules provides me with a stability that is there irrespective of how I am feeling, keeping me from sin during moments of weak faith.
The rules are not a burden for those raised in the faith, anymore than brushing ones teeth or washing ones hands before dinner are a burden to those raised with such rules.
It is a way of life that just seems natural to one raised in it.
But I can understand for one who has been raised for example to dress for the occasion, how it can be hard to dress for God irrespective of the occasion. It also is a liberty not to have to worry what type of dress the function or the occasion would require. Irrespective, for it's the same style of dress for everything.
Most importantly for me is how the rules create a unity within the Church that is visible to the outsider, showing them that we are of one mind, of one spirit, of one faith.
It is a visible 24/7/365 non verbal testimony of our faith to the unbeliever.
We never have to verbally inform the unbeliever that we have committed our lives to God, they know that from 300 yards away where we stand.
Modern Christian in public look no different from God hating atheists in their dress and lifestyles. They have lost their non verbal public testimony of faith to the unbeliever.
@@broz1488 The rules are not a burden for those raised in it, but an enormous burden for others. Giant wall.
I wear the same skirt for every occasion and the same kind of shirt. I don't have to give any more thought than a mennonite to my clothes.
Mennonites sure are of one mind. You're not allowed to have any thoughts that aren't from the mennonite culture. For example, they gave my family the whooping cough because no one thought to tell us. So I said, can you please let us know next time? NO NEVER HOW DARE YOU NOT SUBMIT TO OUR PERFECT WAYS. Ok bye.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr the Bible has put subtle obstacles in the way to separate the sheep from the goats.
Those outsiders of a true heart seeking the Lord, will find comfort in the barriers that keep the goats out.
It is after all the reason they wish to join the Church, to be free of the mad goat world. No wall is too high for a true believer seeking God.
Whooping cough is a common childhood illness, you get it once and it's over, not a big issue.
I was wondering is you could present the beliefs of the Old German Baptist Brethren Church. The one I am thinking of has their headquarters in Modesto, California. (Maybe you already did this, but I don't know)?
Thank you for this
I go to an Independent Baptist Church and we practice anointing with oil for healing. It is in the Bible so why wouldn't we?
Didnt the vast majority of Protestant churches require (or at least strongly encourage) the use of head coverings for women? Even Episcopalian women would colour-code their hats to the liturgical colour of the rector! For me, it seems right to stray on the side of doing too much and then be told by Paul when we get to heaven that the head coverings thing was just a local Corinthian thing and werent meant to be taken unversally. I'd rather be from a church that made that error than the flip side.
Thank you very well explained.
Another big difference is that to this day most Mennonites are related to one another either physically or by marriage. Look at any Mennonite bulletin or newsletter anywhere and you’ll see mostly Swiss-German surnames marrying one another such as Yoder, Kurtz, Stoltzfus, etc. Thats not just true for conservative Mennonites but for moderates as well. Mennonites are still largely an ethno-religious group.
I am a Mennonite and I have a Cornish surname. I have worshipped with Mennonites with Scottish, Dutch, Chinese, Laotian, English and Hispanic surnames. In one Mennonite Church I attended ethnic Mennonites were in the minority and former Catholics and Anglicans were active members of the congregation. This trend is starting to materialize in my present church. Also check out the growing number of Chinese Mennonite churches in existence here in Canada. I think many people would be flabbergasted at the number of black Mennonites there are in the world. There are approximately 250,000 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone.
It's hard to marry someone from outside the faith whose ethos on life is the opposite of yours.
One group raises their children to put community first, the other group raises their children to put themselves first.
Every decision a person makes is based on their primary ethos they were raised with.
A divided house will not stand. Having a couple with two opposing world views, is going to be a bumpy marriage.
Thank you so much.
As an Independent Baptist myself, I found this interesting as an honest representation of our beliefs and practices.
It's interesting to listen to this history from Protestant / Evangelical perspective. I never knew Switzerland was in the Netherlands before. 😊 The Swiss Brethren predate the seminal events in the Netherlands, the brotherly agreement in Bern being the very first in Anabaptist history in 1526. It was very simple and not Zwinglian in its doctrinal assumptions. The group of Zwingli's students dissenting from what they saw as his slowness in reforms in Zurich were the next to formally take shape, with an agreement written by Michael Sattler the following year. The Netherlands followed, the original leaders being of quite disparate beliefs in contrast to the remarkable simplicity and unity sustained in Bern. Menno Simons had to lend some kind of form and stability among the Dutch from his monastic training or the movement would probably have crumbled, the man who ordained him leaving the movement soon after. They held some, shall we say, "unusual" doctrines compared to the Swiss. The Bern agreement held for some 170 years before the formation and breaking off of the Amish.
Being Mennonite today can mean almost anything one wishes, sort of like being Baptist and the rest of the Protestant smorgasbord. You just join the flavor (conference) that most suits the version of Christianity you prefer. The conservative Anabaptists that tend to preserve and develop the original restitutional aim of the Swiss, to live out early Christian values unchanged, are found in places like Sattler College in Boston (at the moment, anyway). Those who are mostly guardians of social justice and stand for little else can be found in Mennonite Church USA and their institutions.
All of this was, of course, made possible by the doctrinal inventions and self-declarations of authority by Martin Luther (in contradiction to the Apostles) just a few years before these developments occurred. Like Zwingli, he was firmly in favor of having his theological enemies murdered. That part of the tradition of Rome was certainly adopted by these Reformers irrespective of Jesus' teachings. 2 Thess. 2:15; Jude 3-4
Thanx for the essay.
Sorry but most original conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites would view Sattler College as suspect in the least or at most as either wanna bee's or impostors.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 "Original" can have some curious meanings. Have you ever read the first Bern agreement? Does it sound like "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" today, or does it have quite a different emphasis? What was the first history of evangelism among them? Does it look like the last couple of centuries of "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" or does it look more like passionate engagement that one sees in places like Sattler? Is the average education level among the first Anabaptists nearer to average "conservative Anabaptists and Mennonites" now, or nearer to that expected at Sattler? (BTW, most conservative Mennonites I know don't consider themselves as separate from conservative Anabaptists.)
@@ReflectedMiles Just the last point. Conservative Mennonites coming from the Swiss and German (Palatinate) areas to eastern US centered in Pennsylvania may (though admitting to Anabaptism) often separate themselves from Anabaptists on two (related) levels: 1. Anabaptist includes Amish (I personally know of many Mennonites speaking derogatorily about Amish culturally and spiritually), Brethren, Hutterites, Brethren in Christ/River Brethren, and a few other smaller groups all of whom they prefer to disassociate with. 2. The two groups with Brethren in the above-mentioned are either descendants of or related to Pietism.
The largest conservative Mennonite conference based out of the Mennonite heartland of Lancaster County Pennsylvania has had leaders speak about "Why we aren't Anabaptist " and the "Dangers of Pietism" in sermons at their youth Bible schools, Winter Bible Schools (winter version of an all age VBS), and Revivals. This group has three plus related groups in fellowship with them and at least that many descendant groups - not in fellowship with them who all have or may have some varied teaching warning about "Anabaptists" and "Pietists." Note: I don't agree with them on this and feel they improperly align what they are against with these groups by wrong association of terms (the definition of).
All these groups mentioned above (being the core representation of conservative Mennonites) would be suspect or worse against Sattler College. I also don't agree with them on this.
I would mention that in the last 40 years there has been an increase in people from non-Mennonite and non-Anabaptist backgrounds coming into these fellowships (mostly into revivalist groups where the individuals have left the traditional settings - sometimes for good reasons but other times because of that American indivualism) and new converts read the history and the documents and academically define doctrine and doctrinal intent, but for all practical purposes they are "rewriting" who the Mennonites and Anabaptists are and what they believe. Sort of like a western Christian in a modern evangelical Protestant church writing about persecuted Christians in Iran and India of the ancient churches and defining them as western evangelicals (likely one or another type of Oriental Orthodox) when they have never walked in their shoes...
Note also that I believe the Mennonites/Anabaptists have lost a lot of their early zeal and have often become Mennocentric to the detriment of the faith including a loss of educated understanding including the apologetic reasoning and logic ability some of the early Anabaptist leaders had - Sattler, Simmons, Greble, et cetera.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 I don’t disagree with your summary except in the root concept of what constitutes “conservative” or “original.” For example, I interact daily with someone who would consider and call himself a conservative Lutheran. What he does _not_ mean by that is a preservation of what Luther taught and established on the whole-in fact, he finds many of those particulars repulsive. Instead, he combines the _solas_ of the Reformation with ideals that Fundamentalists hammer on as being “conservative,” and even what Republicans hold to be “conservative” politically, and this mish-mash I am supposed to think of as being conservative Lutheranism. I find this kind of thing common in many different denominations. There are large Baptist organizations who, confusingly, identify themselves as Anabaptist and conservative. (I think this even comes out in A Beka school curriculum.) In a relatively strict sense, then, a Holdeman would be a conservative Mennonite, exclusive of Anabaptist restitution, because Simons himself toured Europe excommunicating all the churches that disagreed with him in any significant way (and Obbe Philips, who ordained him, had abandoned the movement altogether).
In the same way as my Lutheran friend, I have friends in another “conservative” Mennonite conference who are strongly Fundamentalist-leaning and also see that as more of their “conservative” credentials than an adherence to the first Anabaptist ideals that endured (the Swiss Brethren and Amish divide did not occur for some 170 years after the Bern agreement-by far the most stable, simple, and orthodox fruits in Anabaptist history). Few of them want to actually adopt the Menno-centric theology and fruits, and are more inclined to side with the incomplete distinction of the scholars in Zurich from Zwinglianism. I suppose in that respect, their strong flavor of Fundamentalist / Evangelical compromise could be seen as “original” but, like Menno et al, that was not what was originally enduring nor what those like Sattler gave their lives for.
Whether these now have a right to be identified as “conservative” Anabaptists that are not preserving or restitutionalist in nature is another discussion. My original comment presumes they cannot reasonably be called that, by definition, just as I would never identify my friend’s positions as _Lutheran_ conservatism but as an American Fundamentalist conservatism in someone who happens to identify as Lutheran. I don’t doubt that his particular church would represent that as well.
Well done!
As a southern baptist, I love and respect my Mennonite brethren, but why the low emphasis on the great commission?
As a Mennonite myself (although I'm young) I'd say it usually has to do with wanting to remain as seperate from the world as possible especially in the conservative churches. Many that do go on missions come back changed alot and may no longer fit in, and for the most conservative groups it's very difficult as some won't fly, can't drive, don't have cell phones ect... That makes things tough. I think that is changing with time but it's certainly not a strength.
I am member of the southern baptist church and proud of it
Endless splits.
Maybe too much info is shotguned at us in one vid...maybe consider that, going forward.
Harken then thine ear unto the voice of Tradition, for I have not entered into thy life to replace the Scriptures, nor do I wish to. But I beseech thee that thou wouldst seek the word of the Lord, to see if I be based upon biblical principles or if I be sheer Tradition. Forthwith thou must know where I be from, for thou dost need to know the difference between the two. If I be but sheer Tradition, then ye must see Scripture and Tradition dwell together in unity. And if ye find that we may not, then remove me from thee. For I do not wan to withhold thee from the wisdom of God! But I would rather assist thee in abiding in it. -A. Random Lattin
Cant believe they never notice that when their views on liberal sexuality kick in, their membership goes to Hell.
In my experience, the holy kiss is only practiced among baptists in the context of desparate college guys trying to get a date.
Can you do a presentation the difference between churches of Christ and Mennonites conservative?
Some of my ancestors came to the U.S. in the early 1700s as Mennonites.
You need to do a little more research on some of this. I know of several independent baptist churches that practice foot washing.
Gospel by grace.
Menno Simons should have read the fine print before signing.
Good job.
What about deliverance from evil spirits as Mark 16 outlines?
Never really understood the idea of international mission. So much here to do or even Mexico or Canada . Everychurch,no matter what affiliate seems to stop at holiday food baskets. smh
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:13-15)
In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [a]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12)
Not a lot, because NO PIANO allowed on the church. No guitars. My grandmother was one after marriage and my daughter inlaw grew up in the independent Baptist church. No MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS ARE ALLOWED in the church. No harp, nothing.
I saw two Mennonite gals at a Wendy's, I could tell by their hats, and they had cell phones.
The difference is we Mennonites follow the scripture and get our doctrine and practice from the Bible while the IFB follow such false teachings of men as OSAS and premillennial dispensational eisegetical eschatology. Our ladies follow the scriptural directive to cover their heads while praying and prophesying while IFB women cut their hair, paint their faces and decorate their bodies with jewelry.
As a priest he never had yet read the Bible? That's not possible. Once a deacon, he would've been required to pray the hours, consisting nearly entirely of Holy Scripture, particularly the psalms. The rites of sacraments contain much (if not mostly) of Holy Scripture as well. If you're Catholic, you don't have to pick up the Bible because you're already reading it through the liturgy, the prayer of the Church. The protestants are the ones who threw God's Word away by encouraging studying it to each one's private & flawed interpretations-- to their own destruction.
Note what was said - he never read the Bible before becoming a priest or in his training to the priesthood. Not that he never read it as a priest. As GAMEO says "He did not read the Bible as such before his second year as a priest. Naturally he knew large sections of it, e.g., through the Roman missal."
I grew up independent fundamental baptist and became mennonite
I'm wondering why you compare Independent Baptists A LOT to the other Churches? Just a question.
If I'm not mistaken, he is an independent Baptist.
Oh, okay, I guess it makes sense now.
I had to like just to get the number to 667
Is there a shared origin between Baptists and Mennonites, or was this comparison done just for the sake of comparison?
Thanks
Might want to revisit the missions aspect of Mennonites. They have mission organizations.
Church membership or religion can not save you.
Trust Jesus into your heart as Lord and Saviour and you will be saved John 3:16
What I don't understand about such groups and others is their believe in literalism. Jesus himself told us that he never spoke unless it was in parables. He gave examples but they were never inside information. I believe the Amish and Mennonites, Baptists, and several other churches believe that Jesus spoke LITERALLY but this is clearly not so because Jesus himself said that he always taught in parables. Sometimes he even had to explain his parables to some of his disciples. You really DO have to have the keys to his parables. The KEYS to the kingdom of heaven lie in unlocking the parables if you want to plumb the depths of his words. Otherwise, you get only the outward meaning, which isn't a bad thing. This is all some people can understand and that's okay.
so mennonites believe in works based salvation
Do mennonites believe in grace through faith alone or is it also a works based religion?
Usually grace through faith. Not works based. But a Christian will live like a Christian - good. Many conservative Mennonites may object to Luther's "Solo" doctrines, so are more like the early church and hold the early orthodox theology.
@@wesleyhornberger4305 how much sin could one do before they lost salvation according to a Mennonite after they were born again. How much depends on me to maintain my salvation?
At their foundation, conservative Anabaptists rejected the novelties of the Reformation as much as they rejected the novelties of post-Nicene Rome, and Rome's deceiving impact on the Eastern Church as well, though I have found that many conservative Anabaptists see themselves as closer to the Eastern Church than to either Western stream. That's why both Roman rulers and Reformers murdered them, humble imitators of Jesus and the Apostles as they were. (???) So no, traditional Anabaptists of any kind would not accept _sola fide_ as it has no basis in the Scriptures or the apostolic Church. However, they certainly accept _sola gratia_ as that is just a re-statement of the most fundamental tenet of salvation in Christianity: that it is impossible for anyone of a fallen race in a fallen world to be inherently worthy of, or to earn, their salvation. That does not change the Scripture's explicit statement that a man is *not* justified by faith alone (James 2:24; Martin Luther detested this book of the New Testament for its statements contrary to his gospel).
"This is a faithful saying:
'For if we died with Him,
We shall also live with Him.
If we endure,
We shall also reign with Him.
If we deny Him,
He also will deny us.
If we are faithless,
He remains faithful;
He cannot deny Himself.'"
@@jamesskinner1902 any amount of unconfessed sin will keep you out of heaven. is how most churches would teach. and when i say unconfessed i mean any sin you haven't dealt with between you an God you don't have to confess before the church.
@@jamesskinner1902 Mennonites would not quickly try to analyze "how MUCH sin could one do..." Mennonites are not Calvinist or Augustinian. But also not pure Arminian. They would be closer to "Wesleyan Arminian." Their definition of sin, et cetra. It is interesting to note that the Methodist circuit rider, Francis Asbury would at times travel and co preach with a Mennonite preacher especially in Virginia. I feel that may be why the Mennonites in Virginia have a more episcopalian form of Church government.
This closeness to Wesleyan Arminian theology would be why Mennonites often prefer Adam Clark's Commentary and Whedon's Commentary - Methodist.
On "how much depends on me to maintain my salvation" - this would be a problematic statement to a Mennonite. They would believe Salvation is freely offered to all versus "election" and would not believe in the "preserverance of the saints" as in "once saved, always saved." However, they do not believe it "depends on me" "to maintain my salvation."
Mennonites would say that Jesus Christ and His shed Blood maintains our salvation, but that a Christian would respond with love and faithfulness to Christ, not to earn or maintain Salvation, but because this is the natural outflowing of a changed heart and direction. Again closer to the Wesleyan definitions.
Note: Mennonites are not typically in the "second work of grace" camp of modern Phoebe Palmer conservative Wesleyan holiness churches. They are fine with sanctification with consecrations and dedications and also coming under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but not with two instantaneous works of grace or the presumption of the "eradication" of the "sin nature."
Hope I didn't lose you or anyone else reading. Be aware also that there are almost as many kinds of Mennonites as Baptists. PS. Mennonites are the core Anabaptist descendants, but many continental Baptists (often found in Fundamental Bible believing Baptists) also have Anabaptist decent. Watch the Documentary "Being Baptist" on RUclips put out by Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento.
Are mennonites trinitarian?
Yes, Mennonites believe in the trinity.
As long as my trust is in Jesus, lose my salvation, I'm not worried about it.
A good way to describe the word Eschatology in athism is the phrase, "Is it live, or is it leader tape." Most religions put some sort of binary event way at the end of Side A on the 9-track stored program recording tape...in atheism...it just runs out of magnetic surface...kind of like an aluminum wire recorder. (Aluminum will not retain a magnetic field).
Until 9:21 that's when you are making a-capella human synthesizer sounds and discover how to use the filter as a pitch source....It's LegionWave 1978 Roman Gladiator times...anyone for some Tangerine Dream-Bent Cold Sidewalk?
This focuses on differences in practice as if Mennonites were just another Protestant denomination. It does not look at the fundamental difference between the Anabaptist roots of Mennonites and the Protestant roots of Independent Baptists. At the heart of all their differences are some radically different understandings of the mission and message of Jesus.
Very interesting take. I agree with it mostly I think. You'll get some pushback from the more conservative IFB groups that they trace their lineage all the way back to the "first church that Jesus established".
This claimed lineage includes waldenses, anabaptists, etc. That they take as their own.
Baptists aren't necessarily Protestants because they weren't "protesting" the Catholic Church.
Independent Baptists are addicted to technology. Especially GenX ones.
The 1689 does oaths, so.... maybe you are over optimistic by saying most Baptists do not have any doctrine on it.
Very very few if any independent Baptists today hold to any old creeds or confessions. Those were mainly from groups that are part of denominations today like the American Baptists, etc.
He's talking about Independent Baptists. These would be non denominational, non-subscribing churches, that follow a "fundamental" sola scriptora theology in the Baptist tradition.
@@BaoYili Since "independent Baptist" is identifiable, and even has a common name to distinguish it, it meets the definition of a denomination. It is a peculiar division or subset of Christianity. My step-grandmother was one, and she provided hours of entertainment going round-and-round with her friends from the Church of Christ on that and other issues, since they also claim to be "non-denominational" but she sure didn't want others to put her in their "pigeonhole" with the same claim (trying to avoid the term "denomination," since that would make her church one, too). 😉
@@ReflectedMiles Being "identifiable" with a "common name" is not the definition of a denomination. By that definition any group with a label for themselves is a denomination. A denomination, by definition is a unified collective of congregations (churches) - not independent churches with similar beliefs. To quote the Merriam Webster dictionary, a denomination is "a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices."
@@danielboggs2013 You forgot to note that your definition is the 4th in the queue of predominance in the Merriam-Webster, and it is in 5th place in the most widely recognized authority of the English language, the OED. Even if we hold rigidly to the 5th most common usage rather than conceding any other part of the definition, the OED still makes an organization or collective unnecessary to the definition but only _the most common_ reference, defining the term as, "A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; now almost always spec. a religious sect or body having a common faith and organization, and designated by a distinctive name." The peculiar local flavor of "Baptist" or "Independent Baptist," etc., has little bearing on the ready identification of the sect. That is sometimes true within churches where they have a denominational organization that is embraced as well.
"A collection of individuals classed together under the same name"... It first happened at Antioch but has happened countless thousands of times from the 16th century on, especially, as theology and pulpits were prized more and more and the Body of Christ less and less. I once did a little exercise in a city in the Midwest, highly churched, where on one of the main streets through town there were multiple churches and quite a number of them bearing at least one major name in common. I decided to see if those with the same name on the door, in part, were in fellowship with one another. Most of them were not even in communication with one another, let alone in fellowship. At best, the minister of this one knew the minister of the other one half a mile away, or used to.
13:22 Chevy brand church...membership sinks...Like A Rock. The trend these days is not to take the 'Live Action Role Play Dress Up And Be Holy' game so seriously now. I for one believe religion is useful if it is fun. Fun is the meaning of life. Without fun there is a cold empty eternal nothingness.
Why title yourself anything but a disciple of Christ? Are people truly this deceived?
People usually just end up accepting the monikers that are thrust upon them by others. For example, Luther was outraged that people were being called, or accepting the identification, of “Lutheran.” His outrage, however, has changed nothing internally or externally in that respect. Most Mennonite groups and history have little, if anything, to do with Menno Simons. The name is still used as a distinctive from the 20,000+ other denominations, non-denominations, and other groups in Christendom. I don’t know of any set of churches that isn’t subjected to this. Every one of them has to be identified somehow. Call yourself “Disciples” and knowledgeable people immediately associate that as “Campbellite.” There is no escape, unfortunately, just as with many other consequences of sin.
Mennonites very seldom if ever quote Menno Simons, Lutherans quote Luther ad nauseam.
Hello,
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 KJV
The bible says that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the remission of sins and that it saves us. Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16.
The bible teaches that when a person receives the gift of the Holy Ghost that it will be manifested by speaking in other toungues (real languages that you have never learned). Acts 2:4, Mark 16:17, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6 etc.
Born of water = water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Born of the Spirit = receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in new toungues.
The NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is JESUS CHRIST. Matthew 28:19=Acts 2:38
If you were baptized under the titles Father, Son, Holy Ghost then you were baptized wrong. You must be baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ like we are commanded in Acts 2:38.
If you wanna be saved and enter into the kingdom of God then you must obey Acts 2:38.
Mennonites and Baptist's do not believe that speaking in toungues is for today.
Mennonites and Baptist's do not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.
That means that mennonites and Baptist's have not obeyed Acts 2:38.
That means that mennonites and Baptist's are not born of water and of the Spirit.
That means that mennonites and Baptist's are not Christians because they have not obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38.
The new testament started on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when the Holy Ghost was poured out. The new testament way of salvation that the apostles preached was: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38
For it is written: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5
@AWAKEN
There are no three persons mentioned in 1John 5:7,
The only person mentioned therein, is God.
That is why John wrote, "and these three are one".
The Father = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ .
The Word = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 1:1 - the Word was God)
The Holy Ghost = God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (John 14:8-11 - Jesus said that the Holy Ghost is the Father)
@AWAKEN No sir, the bible says: "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracle's of God" 1Peter 4:11.
Nowhere does it say that God is three persons.
The only Holy Spirit is God the Father, for God is Holy (Psalms 99:9) and he is a Spirit (John 4:24).
Matthew 10:20, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."
Mark 13:11, "...but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."
There is only ONE Spirit;
Eph 4:4
ONE Lord;
Eph 4:5
Now the Lord is that Spirit.
2Corinthians 3:17
God is ONE. Dueteronomy 6:4
God is not a man. Numbers 23:19
The Son of God is a man. 1Tim 2:5
God is a Spirit. John 4:24
The Son of God is not a Spirit. Luke 24:39
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Tim 2:5
==========================
Jesus said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God", John 17:3
According to Jesus the only true God is his Father.
Paul says: "But to us there is but one God, the Father," 1Corinthians 8:6.
Jesus and Paul both did not believe in the trinity. The only God that Jesus and Paul knew was God the Father.
@Tyler Woodturning The thief on the cross lived and died during the time of the old testament. The new testament began on the day of Pentecost 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ in Acts chapter 2. ( This was written of in Leviticus 23:15-17 ) and is recorded for us in the book of Acts chapter 2.
The thief on the cross (being in the loins of his forefathers) was baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. (1Corinthians 10:1-2 KJV)
Sea and cloud = water and spirit
Also Jesus was baptized to fulfill all rightousness.
@Tyler Woodturning Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James KJV.
@Tyler Woodturning In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 2Thess 1:8-9 KJV
All those who do not obey the gospel Acts 2:38 shall be punished with everlasting destruction.
Men believing man's rules vs. God's word. Religion kills God loves and saves
Baptists and Mennoniten are synonyms. Same words in two different Indo languages.
You could say John the Baptist or Johannes de Doper, or Johannes de Täufer or Johannes de Mennonite.👍
You could do the dame with Menno Simons 👍
what is beechie?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beachy_Amish
thanks they say beachie a lot they separate men and women for prayer
I don't kiss most people, maybe a fist 👊 bump.
What is the difference in the daylight and dark you must be born again I am a missionary Baptist
Menno Simons did not read the bible because of being afraid of misinterpreting God's word.
Divorce is only sinful if you believe a former drug addict is sinful...marriage is the C&S Church & State's original recreational drug. Don't start it, and you won't have to quit...but if you are still using, you should be treated like a human being until you get off the stuff...then just be able to have a peaceful normal life thereafter,
They are both the same
You seem to deviate from you usual presentation structure here. Do you want to avoid a little box saying BAPTIST KILL IN WARS ? Guilty conscience? Jesus did not teach war, or stoning to death. His teachings were radically new.
Just using familiar terminology, but it would not be inaccurate to say that Baptists are in favor of killing in wars.
There are Baptists that serve in the military. That isn't saying they promote killing. They just believe in service to their country. We go to a Baptist church. There is a wall in our hall that has a cork board with updates on our military and missionary members.
@@Tanya_loudestgarden Jesus said that we are to resist not evil. Serving your country by going into another country with a machine gun cocked and loaded is indeed promoting killing.
You conveniently left out the rather large number of anabaptists you predecessors… John Calvin and co. Killed. They do not hold to OSAS ( which is unscriptural)
Sounds apostate
Organized religion seems like playing Simon says on a mass scale.