Just a small comment:
I read what wikipedia wrote about Mennonites. Then I heard from a Mennonite that the text does not give an accurate picture of the group today - concentrates too much on historical details and practices in “fringe groups”. Your attitude to search information from reliable sources is very good. If we would only rely on what has been written in wikipedia or what we heard from second-hand sources, we would absorb a great deal of strawman pictures.
1 Like
are you familiar with the temptation of Jesus at the end of his 40 days in the wilderness? It would seem that narrative has skipped your memory.
I find it interesting that so many individuals who have wrong theology make this claim in order to support views that are contrary to self evident scriptures.
The safer option is to follow a rather simple biblical model…read a variety of texts from the bible about a particular belief and ensure that ones final position on the matter is not contradictory to those texts. If study of the bible find contradictions with ones belief, burying ones head in the sand with “all I need is love” really is just that, burying ones head in the sand! (I recall seeing an image on google searching about a fella burying his head in the sand, whilst having a lit a fire cracker tied to his butt…the better option would be to proactively deal with the impending explosion)
Thanks. I wanted to let Mennonites speak for themselves, and also look for other reliable sources. I only use Wikipedia for a limited number of topics. The quality of Wikipedia varies widely from article to article. It’s pretty surprising when I see people consulting it for questions of faith and doctrine. I just wish people would answer my questions.
perhaps you can enlighten me in how the temptation of Jesus can explain divine nature of Christ while He was on earth?
None of us has perfect knowledge and perfectly correct interpretations about everything written in the scriptures. As our knowledge is limited, it is honest to admit it and emphasize wholehearted drive towards living according to the will of God and truth. This attitude has an inbuilt autocorrect option. When we learn that our interpretation about something is not quite correct, the autocorrect option activates and the direction of our life changes (or should change), a little or much depending on the matter.
When studying the acts of God in history, it becomes evident that God does not demand perfect knowledge and correct doctrine, not even sinless life. He seeks for faith and a faithful heart. Those having ‘correct’ doctrine may remain dry as desert sand when someone with questionable beliefs and interpretations (‘wrong theology’) may experience and mediate great acts of God.
When something in the scriptures is self evident we of course should adopt it. The problem with the scriptures is that many passages can be and have been interpreted in more than one way. Honest Christians can end up in different conclusions about the passages, even when at least one of the contradictory interpretations must be wrong.
The basic problem is that we interpret the passages through a prewired model of interpretation and the interpretations of the passages are adjusted to the model, not the opposite (the theological term is eisegesis). This is mostly a subconscious process and we can honestly think that our interpretation is the correct one, even if that would not be true. Honest but mislead by previous teachings. The degree of honesty and the true attitude are tested when we find out that our interpretation about something is not correct.
2 Likes
Here are some questions for those who don’t think Jesus was divine from his conception:
When Mary, pregnant with Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, why did Elizabeth call Mary “the mother of my Lord”? (Elizabeth was under the influence of the Holy Spirit when she spoke.)
Why did the Magi, coming from a foreign country, come to worship the Christ child?
1 Like
Perhaps the question should be : why did Jesus have to be divine during conception for these things you mentioned happened? How did these things prove Jesus’ divinity? These things could happen whether Jesus was divine or not during conception.
that would seem to deny the term “self evident” scriptures. When reading a very self evident biblical statement such as
John 2:16 Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.
Are you suggesting this is not something that is rather self evident in terms of meaning and it perhaps is easy to theologically misinterpret in the modern age?
I think that the problem here in reality is, if one cannot accept that bible authority over the interpretations of men (when it comes to understanding the world in which we live) then one must accept the statements from leading evolutionary visionaries that deny the integration of God into any evolutionary understanding.
My assumption is that you are aware that some of the leading founders of the Evolutionary movement have in the past made it absolutely clear,
“Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.” Charles Darwin 1879
If you are aware of such things, how could you possibly entertain the idea that any mainstream interpretation of the world around us using science is valid? (Do not say “science proves it”…that is going to get shot down immediately)
My view is that one must never use that platform/position in order to translate (or transpose) your understanding of scripture it is utter foolishness.
Perhaps I can put this a simpler and more obvious way, consider the following illustration:
Person A
Science, as described by mainstream non believing scientists who persistently and very openly deny there is any room for God in their interpretation and theory, that Science is authoritative and the bible is secondary (if included at all)
The Bible must be interpreted in a manner that agrees with Darwinism (the majority of this view is derived driven by atheists)
Person B
The bible is authoritative and science must be interpreted in a manner which can only support biblical theology WITHOUT reading into the Biblical text
If person A is right will Person B loose their salvation?
If Person B is right, will Person A loose their salvation?
If you can, will even an elementary theological reasoning not see that Person B is not only the position with perfect odds and that Person A is incapable of hedging their bets…if you cannot see this, then I’m sorry but you need to go back to school and start over as there is no chance a genuinely rational person with even a basic concept of this topic would choose to be Person A.
Some messages in the biblical scriptures are rather self evident. The central points have been repeated many times in many places, which helps the interpretation and points that they are central. For example, Jesus Christ is our Lord and the Son of God.
Even some central points have been interpreted in different ways, like salvation through faith. Is it through faith or faith + works? I rely on the grace of God and believe it is through faith, works are a consequence of living faith, not something that affects the salvation. Others might disagree.
Many less central matters are mentioned in just one or few passages and the interpretation can be less evident. Any doctrines built solely on such passages are on a softer bottom of interpretation.
Any text needs interpretation, also this writing. The ‘self evident’ passages are easier to interpret and there is a large agreement about the message. Many passages in the biblical scriptures are less than self evident and our ‘prewired model’ of interpretation affects strongly what we see in these passages.
I believe that God left us two books, Bible (a library of biblical scriptures) and Nature (the book of Gods’ creation). If the books tell the truth, the books should not give a conflicting message. If there is an apparent conflict, our interpretation of the details in one or both books must be wrong.
When I became a believer, I did not know much about either book and accepted what I read somewhere. Later, I understood that everything what was told to me was not true in the sense that the interpretations did not fit the reality. My training as a biologist made me face facts about the book of Nature and notice that the books telling about the young age of our planet or short history of life on the planet were simply wrong. To follow the truth, I had to reject such hypotheses/interpretations. Later I learned more about the biblical scriptures and again had to abandon some of my previously adopted interpretations.
Through these experiences, I learned that we should seek the original purpose/message of what has been written in the biblical scriptures. In this process, there is a need to open the eyes and start to see what is truly written in the scriptures and what is such interpretation that only reflects our ‘prewired model’ of interpretation.
3 Likes
Sorry! I would have responded to this in a more timely manner had I seen it before this moment. For all the time I spend around here, you might be amazed to learn I don’t read everything - not even close!
Here is a “what we believe” summary from the MCUSA web site - which is the largest (but not only) Mennonite organization in the U.S. It could be found by visiting the MCUSA site and hovering over the ‘about us’ menu item, where there is also a link to a history. Many other resources and be found there according to how deep you want to dive.
I’ll confess, I was somewhat taken by surprise at how much detail is included in the pamphlet I linked to above, since I was about to tell you (and still do) - that Anabaptism at large came out of a history of being suspicious of authoritarian or centralized power. Not that we don’t still have many a power heierarchy of our own within congregations and conferences, but generally speaking, there is a lot of emphasis on congregational autonomy and deliberate avoidance of top-down, creedal heavy-handedness or concentrations of power. That power inevitably comes with corruption is pretty much historically baked into our outlook. Our appreciation for the Bible is steeped in the historical gratitude that we (from the Reformation on) finally could read it for ourselves. And joined to that is our history of attempting to be very Christ-focused. At least that’s my two-cents regarding at least something of what might be generally regarded as Anabaptist philosophy and attitude. I hope any others here with Anabaptist roots or knowlege will also chime in to correct, clarify, or add to anything I’ve said.
And of course, it shouldn’t need saying, but there are enough different varieties of Mennonites that exceptions can easily be found to all my observations above. We - just like larger denominations, are still quite a diverse lot.
[Oh - and I guess it would have been appropriate for me to try to find if you had some specific question regarding Mennonites. If it was just something regarding how we view baptism, then I can assure you that about the only commonality we all have is that we practice believer’s baptism. Beyond that, and as regards process or ritual of how it’s carried out - we’re all over the map.
But since I haven’t (and won’t) wade back through all the thread to find any specific question that may have been voiced, I hope you will still remind us of any remaining things if you’re still curious.]
4 Likes
It shows his special status before birth. Do you think Jesus was divine? If so, when do you think this happened?
I may be coming late in this conversation, but I am curious - what things would happen that may render Christ’s divinity unnecessary?
1 Like
Thanks for your post. I’m not sure what creedal heavy-handedness is. The creed in your pamphlet is very long and detailed. And that’s okay. Might as well explain where you are coming from. It’s not even the complete text of the confession of faith! Do you know how long the complete confession is?
I was very surprised to see that in point 24:
24. We place our hope in the reign of God and its
fulfillment in the day when
Christ will come again in
glory to judge the living and the dead.
The portion I have bolded is lifted directly from the Nicene Creed:
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
Anyway, what I’d like to do is get together a post on the Nicene creed. Nobody has to like the creed. Nobody has to use it. Nobody has to believe it. I will have trigger warnings. But I think it’s worth knowing about. In theology class we had a very good 13-part series on the Nicene Creed, so I will base my post mostly on that.
1 Like
Jesus was always special because He was/is always God. But when He came to earth, He came as a human being. He left His divinity though His status was still God.
Good thought to ponder upon. For me, I think Jesus left His divinity because He had to come as a weak human being though sinless. A human being that could face the same temptation as us. A human being that can feel the pain of the cross.
Yes, and it is worthwhile to ponder on Christ being fully human and fully divine. As the Son of Man, he lived amongst us as one of us, experienced the full spectrum of human existence, suffered at our hand. He also displayed the compassion of the Son of God, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, strengthen the faith of His disciples, and so on. This becomes acutely Christian as we consider His death and resurrection, where the Son of Man is put to death and resurrected as the Saviour, the Word of God.
I’m using it in the sense, not only just of having long lists of detailed creeds, but perhaps more importantly: in how all of that is applied. ‘Heavyhandedness’ (to me) would be the stern application of every one of those detailed creeds as absolute gatekeepers for your organization/denomination. And the failure to allow that perhaps some among all those many beliefs may be much more important than others - something that punctilious creedalists are loath to admit - they see it as a house of cards:
remove just one jot or tittle (among all that they currently consider important anyway) and the whole thing falls down.
This remains a struggle in our own denomination the same as for so many others right now too. Some of our conferences have historically favored more church autonomy, while others have more favored the enforcement of a stricter adherence to this or that “line in the sand”, even at the cost of churches parting company with wider conference identity, lately over many of the same hot-button issues we are all so familiar with right now.
So; while you do see a detailed list there, nonetheless there is no conference-wide requirement that congregations, much less individual members must sign off on everything there as a requirement to join. Membership requirements will vary considerably from church to church. That’s what I mean by creedal “non-heavihandedness” in any case.
3 Likes
@Mervin_Bitikofer and @beaglelady, coming from an independent Baptist background, the “what we believe” summary Merv shared is a familiar format to me. The contents are somewhat different (no obsessive eschatological stuff or mention of Dispensationalism, for example) but the format is familiar. Now that we’ve been attending a Presbyterian church for a year (and for the first time in my life with regularity), I’m really taken aback by the precision of the Westminster Confession and catechisms, whew! and lack of wiggle room.
I’m used to a bit of wiggle room and have been very uncomfortable as my old church and similar others have signed onto more and more “city” statements to tighten things up, where there had been some room to breathe.
It has been interesting to see how my understanding of the value for precisely drawn confessions has changed as I have been confronted by one, as well as the kinds of questions I am asking, including: * How does one fit well here (in this congregation; the pastors are great) holding somewhat different Christian beliefs?
- Will I be confronted continually by “doctrinal thought police” who are unable to think past their confession and ask questions of it?
- Can I find a place in this congregation that looks beyond getting the doctrine right and seeks to live it out in their community (which really covers a number of very different communities from a university town to very rural)?
Or is the answer to every one of life’s challenges required to come from the WCF?
3 Likes
Quite the apt metaphor there! Creeds so tight that no room is left for the Spirit’s breath. You give a profound thought there, Kendel!
And lest it be thought I’m all anti-creedal, I could add this on the positive side. Maybe creeds well-applied function more like a protective rib cage, providing structure and protection for the lungs to function as they ought.
2 Likes