Featured Orthodox Christians

>Then how do they differ from others, like Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc.? Or do they in the eyes of God as you see it?

As late as the Reformation "Christian" doctrine was outlined by the ecumenical creeds. The (Ana)Baptists were universally condemned as heretics.

400 years later Baptists are accepted as "Christian" and the LDS is universally condemned as heretical. I predict in another few generations the LDS will be accepted as "Christian."

By the way, from

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=anabaptist_commune_munster

The Anabaptist Commune of Münster 1534 -1535



. . . In September 1534, suggested by the preacher Dusentschuer, Jan van Leiden was proclaimed “King of Jerusalem”, in an attempt to put the Commune of Münster into biblical tradition, as a Kingdom in direct succession to that of David and Solomon.

The role of Jan van Leiden throughout the months that followed his elevation is highly controversial amongst historians, and demonstrates the difficulties of historiography. The primary accounts of the Anabaptist Commune in Münster were written a few years after its demise, and almost exclusively by sworn enemies of the faith. All contemporary sources vilify the Anabaptists, and especially their two most prominent leaders, Jan Matthijs and Jan van Leiden. Modern accounts, on the other hand, especially those of Socialist writers like Karl Kautsky, have attempted to glorify the Commune which was identified as the prequel to Communist societies.

With the city virtually cut off from the rest of the world, news from within Münster reached the outside very sparingly, and if from the steady trickle of renegades that reached the Bishop's camp, where the the Catholics used any information to bolster their anti-Anabaptist propaganda.

The apparent splendour in which the new King ruled, the community of goods inside the city, and last but not least, the polygamy that the Anabaptists had introduced, were the most popular accusations directed at the rebellious city.

And it was foremost the 'polygamy” that captured the imagination of the people of the HRE, and still does most popular accounts. Rumours about the apparent decline of sexual morals inside Münster spread, or were deliberately spread by its enemies, like wildfire, and especially the conduct of the King who apparently had acquired a whole harem of faithful wives.

There is indeed no doubt that the Anabaptists instituted polygamy for which Kautsky and similar writers offer a simple explanation. By late summer 1534, Münster had about 9000 citizens, 2000 men and 7000 women, most of them left inside the city by their husbands and fathers who had flown. Kautsky argues, that the Anabaptists emphatically attempted to prevent moral disintegration and to protect the large number of single women from sexual assault by the male population, and specially the number of mercenaries inside the walls. By marrying them to respected Anabaptist men, the women's honours could be protected, and the vast majority of such “pro-forma” marriages were never to be consummated. Instead of being the scene of libertine orgies, Münster had set an example for sexual morality. The truth is difficult to establish, but in view of the strict moral codex that most Anabaptist groups practiced, Kautsky's explanation seems the more plausible.

More difficult to explain, is the splendour with which Jan van Leiden conducted his office as the “King of Jerusalem”, more so in the view of dire economical situation Münster found itself in during the siege. Clad in magnificent robes, in stark contrast to the uniform modest clothing that had been introduced for the rest of the citizens,and wearing all the paraphernalia of a “King”, inclusive crown and sceptre, Jan van Leiden made his public appearances into great spectacles. His apologists have argued that Jan van Leiden's extravagance was not of his personal choice, but a clever propaganda move: to demonstrate the earthly splendour of the coming “God's Kingdom”, the King had to set an example. It seems however true, that with the progressing dire situation of the city, the “King”'s role became increasingly dictatorial, and the Commune that by definition should have been egalitarian acquired a despotic rule. Much of the dictatorial measures, that the “King” and his officials applied, were again necessitated by the war, the sometimes brutal oppression of any opposition against the “King” was justified with the experience of previous treason inside the city.

Much has been made of a “proto- communist character” of the Anabaptist Münster, but if it was the realisation of the Utopian tenets of Anabaptism or the demands of a city under siege, is open to debate.

Quite early into the Anabaptist reign in Münster, the new rulers of the city had done away with the usual records of private property when deeds and debt documents had been destroyed. Abandoned houses had been distributed to incomers, means of production were taken into communal property, and the mass feeding of the population was organised. And the more the economical blockade by the Bishop's troops affected the town, the more it became necessary to share the ever dwindling resources. Over the coming months the entire wealth of the remaining population was channelled into the community, to organise the defence and to feed the increasingly starving people.

And food supply became the overriding problem of Münster, the surrounding countryside had been occupied and pillaged by the Bishop's forces, who by late 1534 had closed the siege and prevented any supplies reaching the city. Famine broke out in the city, causing a high number of casualties, especially amongst the children and elderly citizens of Münster.

At the beginning of 1535, the situation had become desperate. It had become obvious that short of miracle and God's intervention, Münster could not hold out much longer.The town was on its own, bereft of any potential allies. Whilst in the previous summer there had been some hope that military relief would reach the city, no such prospect existed now.

The Dutch Melchiorites had tried to organise an army in May 1534, a few thousand men had attempted to assemble in Holland and reach Münster by boats, sailing up the Rhine into Westphalia. But the army had been broken up by Habsburgian troops and no help had ever reached Münster.

In their desperation, the Anabaptists of Münster, turned to the Landgrave Phillip of Hessen, one of leading Protestant princes of the HRE. He was asked to mediate between the two warring forces, but true to his conduct in the peasant War of 1525, Phillip not only refused any negotiations, but even sent troops of his own to the Bishop's assistance. For the princes of Germany, regardless of their confession, it had become all to clear that the Anabaptist rebellion, was shaking the foundations of the earthly authorities of the HRE.

The Imperial Diet of Worms on April 4, 1535 offered its fullest moral and material support to the policy Archbishop Franz von Waldeck. The re-conquest of Münster became an Imperial concern. . . .

 

hello again brotheress anastasia:

I have only been at the BB for a short time so I cannot claim your compliment. I think that it is important to keep an open mind on all Christendom. It is fair to take sides in support of God and Jesus but a bit of rivalry exposes one to a better understanding of the flock. Don't forget that more Christians have been killed by other Christians than any other groups including the Romans.

BTW, If you don't mind answering, which type of Orthodoxy / HinJew / Amish / Dracula / Christian are you??? Your tithing must be very complicated??

zara ... :smilewinkgrin:

 

brotheress anastasia:

WOW: It is goin to take some time to put a ribbon around your religion. It is even longer than mine.

thanx, zara .....:thumbsup:

 

Oh, the mindset that you speak of is still in control here. I was just ousted from the Baptist sections, although I hold to all the Baptist principles, distinctives and freedoms and my local church membership is in a Baptist church. The sticking point seems to be that I founded my own Communion several years back which is quite diverse. Plus they don't like a few of my personal beliefs -- such as hell not being an eternal frying pan for human souls.

A while back, I steadfastly defended Baptists and Baptist principles against a Lutheran here who was attacking Baptists and comparing them to cultists. But that fact was easily forgotten in their zeal to remove me from the Baptist sections.

 

Wow! I missed that one so what do you believe about hell?

 

My first thought is: Why give an attacker more ammunition? But since I don't care, I'll copy and paste from the CAC website. The first part is from our "Principles"; the second part is my own personal belief. All based on literal meaning of "aion/aionios" in scripture; what Jesus actually taught about the subject -- when Jesus spoke of God's judgment upon the wicked, he did so with words that implied a limited, corrective punishment. Specifically, he referred to divine judgment as aionios kolasis, meaning age-long chastisement, thus divine judgment is reformative, not vindictive. The word used in the original Greek New Testament is kolasis, which means a beneficial chastening such as a gardener prunes a vine to remove dead vegetation and make it grow more fruitfully.

Oops, I disabled the copy function on the website, to keep people from stealing content. So go here, and scroll down to the 19th principle: http://celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/principles.html

Then to the "Personal Beliefs" page: http://celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/personal_beliefs.html


That should give you enough ammunition to label me a blasphemous, cultic, apostate heretic on my way to hell if I don't repent, as a few have charged me with here. Have fun!

 

Disabling the copy function does not keep people from stealing content they want. But it is not likely that would be a problem anyway. Thanks for responding.

 

When I first joined this site I was a baptist and attended a Southern Baptist Church over time and through study I ended up returning to the Catholic Faith but I can't change my denominational affiliation which I initially signed up as. So, I informed the board of my change committed to only stay in the all christian sections and properly changed the name of the Church which I attend. I don't know of any Baptist Church Named After St. Patrick. And hopefully that was sufficient to inform people of my switch. Plus I try to be up front about it. My testimony is on other threads both of leading from Catholicsim to protestantism having a "born again" experience conversion when I was younger and the reasons I returned to the Catholic faith. However, I enjoy the debating atmosphere and the people on this board from what I can assertain have sincere faith and love God to the best of their ability and know their faith and beliefs as well as scripture. Some are very well educated and I'm constantly challenged to study things for myself. But thats the long way of saying that I changed during my time here. BTW I don't want to give the impression that it was the board that change my view. It wasn't It was primarily my study and personal spiritual development along with things occuring at the church which I had attended.

 

Though I'm no longer baptist, if you want, I can accuse you of not taking God at his word and that though yes the Hebrew word for Yom can mean an Eon or an age contextually speaking the creation account Yom specifically refers to a commonly understood day of 24 hours. And if you're not going to take the clear teaching of the bible as it is clearly stated in Genesis then why do you take anything in the bible seriously?

Does that make you feel better about being on the board? :smilewinkgrin:

 

> The sticking point seems to be that I founded my own Communion several years back which is quite diverse.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

In Leviticus chapters 1-8 there were five primary offerings used as types of our redemption. All five were classified as falling under either (1) sweet savour or (2) non-sweet savour sacrifices. All sacrifices dealing with sin were classified as Non-sweet savor (sin, tresspass) while all sacrifices dealing with righteousness were classified as sweet savour sacrifices (burnt, meal, Peace).

The sacrifice you speak of is a "sweet savour" sacrifice that included no blood at all - the meal offering. This sacrifice represented the perfect sinless righteousness of Christ and the believer in Christ.

Furthermore, this sacrifice did not use ordinary common "flour" but rather finely sifted flour that removed all deficiencies from the flour just as Christ's life was finely sifted from all sins.

If you would give some serious study to the offerings in Leviticus you will see there is no clearer and more detailed types of the gospel of Christ in the Bible.

 

No such justification in Romans 4-5:2! If it were a process Paul would have been foolish to deny justification was "IN CIRCUMCISION" - Rom. 4:9-11 but only "IN UNCIRCUMCISION"

1. Aorist tense and perfect tense verbs demand a completed action at a completed point in the past when taken with the denial "in circumcision"

2. The only progression indicated by the Perfect tense in direct connection with Aorist tenses (Rom. 5:1-2) is that it continues as a COMPLETED STATE rather than an incompleted progression.

1. His "works" were PRE-MOSAIC works - vv. 1-5

2. His example of David's words were inclusive of both imputed righteousness and non-imputation of sin, which without both there is no such thing as justification before God.

3. Your Interpretation is a direct denial of Paul's very line of arguments

4. Abraham's example is for all the promised seed - v. 16

You don't understand 2 Cor. 5:21 and so you call it a red herring. 2 Cor. 5:21 says Jesus was "made sin FOR us who Knew no sin"! Experientially he was without sin and thus he could only be "made sin for us" representatively/substitutionarily on the cross where God's wrath was poured out upon him.

Likewise, we were made the righteousness of God in Christ. Experientially we have no such righteousness as God's righteousness is without sin. However, the righteousness of Christ is without sin and thus we are "made" in him the same way Christ was "made" sin for us - representatively/substitutionarily thus by imputation.

 

Well, that cant be answered with a yes or a no.

They are no different then anyone else. If they have..personally, and sincerely, placed their faith in Christ, they are sealed into the body of Christ forever.

If they have not done that, they are still lost.

 

Michael Wrenn is a brother and a good guy.

 

I realize that, but it makes it not quite as easy. Actually, I have seen a couple of places that mimic the wording on our site. Other places, I have given people/jurisdictions permission to use our material for their sites.

Still, I found it necessary to protect our name and materials by use of a service mark.

You're welcome for the response, and I thank you for not attacking me.

 

Why, thank you for that, Bill. I've come to expect this kind of thing from you lately. Been around here long enough finally that the behavior of some has rubbed off on you, has it?

Founding a Communion and founding new doctrine are not the same thing. Guess you would have trouble with Luther, Calvin, Menno Simons, George Fox, John Wesley, etc. Of course we are minuscule compared to those movements, but I was trying to make a point.

 

See, you make assumptions without grounds or knowledge for doing so. You know what they say about those who constantly assume things.

 

Thank you very much!

You do realize that makes you a heretic here, though, right? And I say that with the original meaning of the word in mind -- one having a minority opinion.