Sattler College Turmoil

[Praxis+Theodicy]

We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

I haven't read the whole argument back and forth in S&T, but even I can see the nuance in FotW's position in this sentence alone. It seems to clearly mean that salvation is granted to those who have faith, repent, and are baptized; but that it is only a REFUSAL to participate in the process that would result in a lack of salvation, not in an incidental lack of participation. For example, someone who has faith but is killed before baptism would be saved, but someone who professed faith and then said "but I am not going to be baptized, no way!" may not be saved.

So you think by putting out that doctrine, and publicizing it, they are condemning more people that are saved if they do not submit to it, than they are saving people who do?

Better to stop teaching it, if that is your logic.

This is insane.

I'm not sure why you think that logic applies to what I said. I was just trying to explain a doctrine held. Publishing a doctrine does not save or condemn anyone.... only Jesus can do that.

The purpose of publicizing the doctrine is the same as any statement of faith: to enunciate truth as understood by a group of people derived from the Bible. The Bible talks about baptismal regeneration. Some people explain it away one way or another. Others try to explain it without explaining away any text. This is not the only doctrine that faces this difficult choice. Predestination, eternal security, etc. all have differing conclusions by different denominations, but all are dealt with in their own way.

[NedFlanders]

Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me reformed.

Borrowed, in part, from John Wesley.

With respect JM, your demands on others that they answer yes or no and using terms such as telling people they are using “weasel words,” has made it incredibly easy for one to think you are expressing an attitude of what we’d see from a reformed person.

Trying to use definitions that are effectively made up on the spot to buttress a weak position is exactly that.

Refusing to answer a question that is likely to be asked in an evangelism setting and will surely be asked in a discipleship setting makes no sense. Unless you will be doing discipleship only with people with a significant amount of religious education, the answers given are likely to be completely unintelligible. Great, if confusion is your goal.

I'm not sure God fits in your box.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I haven't read the whole argument back and forth in S&T, but even I can see the nuance in FotW's position in this sentence alone. It seems to clearly mean that salvation is granted to those who have faith, repent, and are baptized; but that it is only a REFUSAL to participate in the process that would result in a lack of salvation, not in an incidental lack of participation. For example, someone who has faith but is killed before baptism would be saved, but someone who professed faith and then said "but I am not going to be baptized, no way!" may not be saved.

So you think by putting out that doctrine, and publicizing it, they are condemning more people that are saved if they do not submit to it, than they are saving people who do?

Better to stop teaching it, if that is your logic.

This is insane.

I'm not sure why you think that logic applies to what I said. I was just trying to explain a doctrine held. Publishing a doctrine does not save or condemn anyone.... only Jesus can do that.

The purpose of publicizing the doctrine is the same as any statement of faith: to enunciate truth as understood by a group of people derived from the Bible. The Bible talks about baptismal regeneration. Some people explain it away one way or another. Others try to explain it without explaining away any text. This is not the only doctrine that faces this difficult choice. Predestination, eternal security, etc. all have differing conclusions by different denominations, but all are dealt with in their own way.

It is the same trap that those who advocate that those who have never hear the gospel are possibly saved through their innocence of having never heard, but those who hear and reject the gospel are condemned. It is an old missiological issue, that arises if you contend that people who never hear can be saved without believing, as some do.

[Ernie]

An Orthodox, an Anglican, an Evangelical, and an (x?)Mennonite walk into a baronto a panel...

I consider myself an Anabaptist.

[Judas Maccabeus]

With respect JM, your demands on others that they answer yes or no and using terms such as telling people they are using “weasel words,” has made it incredibly easy for one to think you are expressing an attitude of what we’d see from a reformed person.

Trying to use definitions that are effectively made up on the spot to buttress a weak position is exactly that.

Refusing to answer a question that is likely to be asked in an evangelism setting and will surely be asked in a discipleship setting makes no sense. Unless you will be doing discipleship only with people with a significant amount of religious education, the answers given are likely to be completely unintelligible. Great, if confusion is your goal.

I'm not sure God fits in your box.

But it is a question that will surely be asked. If you refuse to give a direct answer, the question arises,why? Are you try to obscure what you really believe?

[Judas Maccabeus]

Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my consent call me reformed.

Borrowed, in part, from John Wesley.

Thank you for the quote, I love it.

And if I call you Reformed in the future, I'll do my best to ensure my audience knows it's done without your consent.

If you call me “reformed” I will expect you to justify it through actual reformed doctrinal sources. I doubt you are familiar with any of them.

[Judas Maccabeus]

18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 in which he also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison 20 who in the past were disobedient, when God patiently waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared. In it a few—that is, eight people—were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not as the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Is this passage, ! Peter 3:18-22, (the bolded underlined) a direct reference to the act of water baptism? Seems to me the saving aspect is that it symbolically corresponds to the deliverance experienced by those on the ark.

Read the above link from S&T. The misuse of that verse is dealt with there.

[brothereicher]

Trying to use definitions that are effectively made up on the spot to buttress a weak position is exactly that.

Refusing to answer a question that is likely to be asked in an evangelism setting and will surely be asked in a discipleship setting makes no sense. Unless you will be doing discipleship only with people with a significant amount of religious education, the answers given are likely to be completely unintelligible. Great, if confusion is your goal.

I'm not sure God fits in your box.

But it is a question that will surely be asked. If you refuse to give a direct answer, the question arises,why? Are you try to obscure what you really believe?

I'll ask again. No weasel words please.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why not simply answer the question with a yes or no? If you refuse to give a direct answer, why? What are you trying to hide?

I asked a direct question and you've refused to answer it. Haven't even acknowledged it. That's concerning, to be honest.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm not sure God fits in your box.

But it is a question that will surely be asked. If you refuse to give a direct answer, the question arises,why? Are you try to obscure what you really believe?

What if they ask if you've stopped beating your wife yet? Why not simply answer the question with a yes or no? If you refuse to give a direct answer, why? What are you trying to hide?

I asked a direct question and you've refused to answer it. Haven't even acknowledged it. That's concerning, to be honest.

This is not an equivalent. It once again brings up the question, why. The ICOC publishes an answer, I disagree with their answer, but at least they are open and transparent about what they believe.

[Josh]

I'm not sure God fits in your box.

But it is a question that will surely be asked. If you refuse to give a direct answer, the question arises,why? Are you try to obscure what you really believe?

I'll ask again. No weasel words please.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why not simply answer the question with a yes or no? If you refuse to give a direct answer, why? What are you trying to hide?

I asked a direct question and you've refused to answer it. Haven't even acknowledged it. That's concerning, to be honest.

That’s ridiculous. We are discussing hypotheticals here to try to understand your position better.

Many Anabaptists are wary of “baptismal regeneration” philosophies since they spring from the Catholic Church, which we reject, and also because they have a history of causing intense disunity and divisions.

It is entirely reasonable to ask how people may attain salvation. Indeed, people asked Jesus that in the Bible. Note that the text, when it says “baptism”, would have undoubtedly been “miqvah” in vernacular and any Jew over age 12 had already undergone miqvah, and probably multiple times. It was an OT religious ritual which functioned as a symbol of purification.

Of note is in the NT, religious rituals are no longer described as somehow being acts that save, but rather the obedience and submission to Jesus is the “works” that save. This is a departure from virtually every other religion. Sacramentalism is, essentially, an attempt to transform Christianity back into some kind of more pagan religion.

To see the fruit of sacramentalism and baptismal regeneration theology, we need look no further than the Catholic Church. None of us are interested. And if we were, we’d just become Catholic.