Sattler College Turmoil

[Josh]

To quote Matthew Milioni at KFW (from my memory);

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

It's delightful that this longstanding exercise in creative reframing has now been upgraded to a direct quote without the faintest resemblance to Matthew's phrasing or vocabulary. How long, I wonder, until it loses the square brackets too?

jahertz,

Do you think I’m making this is up?

[jahertz]

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

Was that from the front, so I could source that from a recording?

If that is correct, it is shocking.

Matthew Millioni is a good friend of mine, going back 20 years. We do not see eye to eye on some things. Since he’s moved to Boston I have not at all directly kept up with him. Probably talked with him on the phone once in the last few years.
This quote is completely in line with his thinking in the past, having heard him say very similar things to me. I say very similar, because I don’t remember him explicitly tying it exclusively to baptism.

Those square brackets really do punch above their weight, don't they?

Based on this timeline, my close acquaintance with Matthew began shortly after yours ended. That may be responsible for our slightly different takes on how well the quote above squares with the person we know.

I don't think it's much of a secret that Matthew takes a pessimistic personal view of the spiritual temperature in the average conservative Anabaptist church. But if he ever did see Anabaptists as prime recruitment material, I'd say he changed that view quite a few years ago.

And if he judges people's individual salvation status based on whether they had a FOTW-approved baptism, he's succeeded in keeping that secret from many friends who know him a great deal better than Josh ever did.

[Josh]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

[jahertz]

To quote Matthew Milioni at KFW (from my memory);

“Plain people, Amish and Mennonites are so close to the truth, yet almost none of them are saved [referring to baptism by pouring]. If we are able to get more church plants going, perhaps we could save a few of them.”

FotW’s founders see themselves as delivering salvation (notable is that they term their evangelists “apostles”) to plain Anabaptists.

It's delightful that this longstanding exercise in creative reframing has now been upgraded to a direct quote without the faintest resemblance to Matthew's phrasing or vocabulary. How long, I wonder, until it loses the square brackets too?

jahertz,

Do you think I’m making this is up?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I know you've met MM (on at least one occasion when I was present) and I assume your memory is based on something he said. I think you've framed the meaning of that remark to fit a narrative you personally find compelling, as we all do.

Anyone with a passing awareness of cognitive science knows human memory is subject to extreme distortions even over short timespans. In this case, your account is an outlier that contradicts the accounts of many people with more data and fresher memories. You likely believe your account and your retelling to be accurate. I don't, and I've said why. That's how witness testimony works.

I assume you will have things to reply to this, and as a motivated and indefatigable debater, you are welcome to the last word on this point. I don't like seeing my friends misrepresented and I've made a reasonable effort to correct the record. Readers will draw their own conclusions.

[brothereicher]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. 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.

Hope this helps.

[mike]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. 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.

Hope this helps.

Brothereicher, does this mean that FOTW does not hold to the same concept of baptismal regeneration that Church of Christ has?

[ohio jones]

(Note: For several years under Dean Taylor's presidency, Sattler College's recruiting did focus, rightly or wrongly, almost exclusively on Anabaptist students. This difference of focus from the intent of the founder was one—though far from the only—contributing factor to the turmoil at the school that originally launched this thread. Supporting this is the fact that since Taylor's departure and the board reshuffle Sattler's recruiting appears to have pivoted back to the more diverse range of Christian groups they had marketed to during their first year or two.)

I do find it interesting that the board "reshuffle" resulted in a greater representation of Anabaptists on the board than before, concurrently with this reduced focus on the recruitment of Anabaptist students. It may be, though, that the composition of the board has simply been brought into a closer alignment with the background of the students.

[brothereicher]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. 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.

Hope this helps.

Brothereicher, does this mean that FOTW does not hold to the same concept of baptismal regeneration that Church of Christ has?

I'm not familiar enough with CoC to say for sure.
But if CoC is saying that everyone is damned who doesn't receive baptism in a specific mode, then FOTW does not teach that.

[mike]

I'm not familiar enough with CoC to say for sure.
But if CoC is saying that everyone is damned who doesn't receive baptism in a specific mode, then FOTW does not teach that.

OK, I understand. My personal experience with CoC is having an ex-pastor and his son-in-law (whose church had disbanded) attend our church for a few months, doing some Bible studies together, and learning that their goal was to eventually baptize all of us who had not been baptized by immersion so that we could be saved.

They were really serious about this. At their house, we once used their CoC songbook and sang the song "To God be the Glory" which had obviously had part of the text cut and replaced with:

...the vilest offender who truly obeys, that moment doth enter the heavenly way

As opposed to the original text, objectionable to the CoC, which could possibly imply that a person could be saved at the time of belief in Christ and prior to baptism:

...the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment a pardon from Jesus receives.

[mike]

My guess is that if you pressed CoC members on it, they might not actually come down and say you were damned to hell if you weren't immersed. But at the same time their doctrine strongly suggests that one must be immersed to be saved, so....