Q&A with an Anabaptist

You might find my beliefs interesting. Or fascinating. Or maddening. All depends. Ask anything.

What do you have against Baptists?  :shock:

What is the history of your denomination? How old is it?

Nothing at all. Anabaptist does not mean anti-baptist. The name was given to them because they baptized adults unlike the Catholics/Orthodox who baptized infants. So they were termed the "Re-baptizers" which is what Anabaptist means. So in fact, the Baptist's might have originated from the Anabaptists.  

It started with Conrad Grebel, Felix Manx and George Blaurock. Men with a new vision to explore the scriptures and learn as much as they could without the Roman Catholic's interpretation. It was during the clime of the Reformation and they had been studying under Ulrich Zwingli. However, they did not feel he was taking things far enough. Especially when it came to baptism. Soon after they left him, Conrad Grebel baptized George, and in turn George baptized Conrad and Felix. Things started there, and never stopped.   This was the early 1500's.

Is Anabaptist really a denomination?

What does Ephesians 4:5 mean if re-baptism is allowed?

Were Grebel/Manx/Blaurock basing their beliefs on the Bible or on the Early Church? Did they discuss their beliefs with Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, like Martin Luther did?

I am afraid so. If you are in doubt, google it. 

"One Lord. One faith. One baptism." Well in the case of Grebel/Manz/Blaurock they had all been baptized as infants, in which they knew neither Christ, nor had any "faith." Therefore, their baptism was not legit either. It was just...water. So they finally were baptized. But of course, the Catholics considered this to be re-baptizing. 

The Bible. When the Anabaptists were arrested and had to stand in trial before the Catholics, they would say that if they could be convinced from scripture on infant baptism, they would change their stance and "repent." They placed great emphasis on scripture and on one reading it for oneself instead of it always being interrupted through a higher authority.

Anabaptist have similar origins of Baptists. Actually, we are mostly just a split off of Anabaptists. 
Now I am asking, what is your doctrine on relationships between a males and females in all.

Can you clarify what you mean? Like in how a wife and a husband should work in a home? Or in things like courtship/dating?

Courtship and Dating, if you please.

I will do my best to explain my culture's view on this, and then how I slightly differ.

When a guy and a girl start a relationship, the intended end result is marriage. That's the only reason why the courtship exists. Therefore the breaks ups between couples are rare. And when they do happen, it sometimes can effect those persons reputation, even if it was done for perfectly good reasons. The good side of this is that "broken hearts" are a lot less likely to happen. A girl dates a guy and knows he isn't going to drop her at the blink of an eye. The downside is that a girl might feel duty bound to marry a guy because if she would break up, that could effect her chances later. 

In most conservative Anabaptist cultures the physical aspect is completely ignored until marriage. No holding hands, and nothing changes after engagement. Normally there is no kissing during the wedding service either. However, I speak from what I have seen growing up, and I can't vouch for all Anabaptist churches as you can't group them all together accurately. 

My view would be basically the same. I would believe that a relationship isn't as cemented as usually made out to be, but at the same time, I do not think the "date here, date there" is the way to go either. I am not against chaperons, but if they hinder the couple from really getting to know each other one on one, I wouldn't recommend that. As for the physical side of things, I do not see much in scripture saying one way or another. I do see the wisdom in saving physical touching till after marriage because of the temptation it brings.

What would you say to this
2 Peter 1:20 "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, "?

I would take that to mean that a person needs to be apart of a brotherhood. They study the scriptures together and come to a good and right conclusion.

And if people disagree with each other? Who makes the final decision?

I know where you are coming from. I've had this discussion with WD. 

If they disagree they go their separate ways and serve God the best way they know how. The individual himself makes the final decision because he/she alone is accountable to God for what they do with their life. 

So I do not think one person should be in charge of figuring out what the Bible means, because that is too great of a risk to take. One deception and people are deceived. This is why an individual has the Holy Spirit, to guide them into all truth. Some of our conclusions will be different yes, but God can save and protect those who have fully committed themselves to Him from deception.

Hmm, I don't really like your system of courtship, but eh.

Since you won't be marrying an Anabaptist, you won't have to worry about it, now will you? 

So ultimately it is up to the individual to interpret what the Bible means? And that decision in the end is between them and God? Is there absolute truth? Where does it say in the Bible people have the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible and to find all truth?

It's between the individual and God, yes. Suppose an individual was locked away in a dungeon with only a Bible and God? Could he serve God from just that with never coming in contact with other believers? I believe he could. Sure, if he ever met another Christian, they would likely disagree on a few issues. But each of them could have a living vibrant walk with Christ regardless if they had perfect knowledge and understanding of scripture. 

Is there absolute truth? Absolutely. We know we have absolute truth because of Jesus's resurrection. So all Truth is founded in Jesus. If someone is in direct contradiction with Jesus, then I would say they are contradicting absolute truth. 

There are a lot of verses actually. 

John 14:26 wrote:But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Romans 8:26 wrote:Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

John 14:15-17 wrote:If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Thank you for those. Regarding absolute truth, if you believe in absolute truth how could you ever disagree with someone on something in the Bible? How do you find that absolute truth? What's true for me is true for you, there is a right and wrong without room for disagreement. Two people cannot come up with conflicting Christian beliefs without one of them being false.

Well, I guess maybe I should ask you to define what you mean by a "Christian belief." For example, I might conclude that based on this scripture in 1st Peter

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

that I should not wear rings and the Bible condemns jewelry. Suppose I meet another Christian who does wear rings and views this differently? Could we both be following the same Jesus and have a relationship with Him even though we interpret this passage differently?

So is it possible that two people can follow God in different ways, and different cultures, and still be obedient to Him?

When it comes to "what/who is the overriding authority that determines interpreting absolute truth" I really cannot point to anyone other than Jesus. I see Jesus giving us the Holy Spirit to help us interpret His words, and I don't see anything beyond that. I do believe looking at how the apostles lived is a clue and a guideline to how we should walk the Christian life and understand Christ's words, but I am not handing the keys of interpreting everything in the Bible to any particular denomination or person.

In certain areas there is room for disagreement but what about a question about baptism of infants for example? I would say that is a salvation issue.

I would say they could be obedient to God but still wrong only on the virtue that they do not know what is right and therefore cannot choose the right.

If you haven't noticed Jesus kind of isn't here right now. In the flesh (unless you believe in the Eucharist, but even that is different). Would Jesus leave us without a source of truth beyond a book that can be easily interpreted in many ways? I don't think Jesus meant to do that I believe he did leave us a source of truth. The Church which he founded and gave authority to and protects from the gates of hell is a source of truth and interpretation.

Well I would agree with you that baptism is a salvation issue, but I wouldn't agree that an infant can be baptized and believing at the same time. 

I can completely see where you are coming from. I guess I would believe we don't really need anything outside of the Bible to point us to truth.

That is a discussion for the infant baptism thread so I won't go into it.

So there is absolute truth. The Bible points us to that truth but well minding rational people can disagree on what that truth is. How do we know what is the truth? We have to have a someone or something that can tell us what that truth is. The Bible cannot be a matter of private interpretation so there has to be something that can accurately interpret the Bible. That something is the Church of Christ.

What do you think about the law of conscience?
Speaking in tongues?
Healings?

@Jehosophat I would agree that there is absolute truth. I would not believe though that the RCC is Christ's only true church. I believe anyone who is truly a follower of Jesus is part of His Bride, and therefore His Church. So I do not see a visible structure. 

@Blitz 
Can you clarify what exactly the law of conscience is? Is it saying that our conscience always remains right?

Speaking in tongues is scriptural. 

I have seen healings happen at my church in miraculous ways by simply praying in faith to God. So yes, they happen.

If there is no visible structure then how can we know, for certain, who can accurately interpret the Bible?