Sattler College Turmoil

[Josh]

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.

Fortunately, there's an easy way to clear this up:

Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no?

No. Don’t affirm any of the 5 major points of Calvinism, and going a bit wider, I don’t affirm the “solas” either.

That doesn’t mean every single thing a Reformed or evangelical person says is wrong, though. Evangelical people get a lot right when it comes to sharing the good news and leading people into salvation. I think they get a bit lost after that point.

[Josh]

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.

Hypotheticals?

How is asking "Is baptism a requirement for salvation? Yes or no" a hypothetical?

Because it involves positing hypotheticals such as a hypothetical person who has heard the good news, accepts it, but is not yet baptised nor a church member or regular church attender yet.

Even asking about “salvation” involved a hypothetical; most people don’t die shortly after accepting Christ. But we can ask a hypothetical of “Would they spend eternity with Jesus, or eternity apart from him, if they did die at this instant?” That is usually what we mean we ask if someone is “saved”.

I personally prefer to focus on being saved from sin in the here and now, still on this earth, but people do die and eternal salvation does matter.

[jahertz]

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.

Fortunately, there's an easy way to clear this up:

Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no?

I cannot subscribe to the Belgic confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Cannons of Dort. I also reject large portions of the Westminster confession. This would mean I am clearly not reformed as judged by those who are reformed.

I will define before I answer, because you seem to define things in nonstandard ways.

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Do you agree with reformed theology? Yes or no.
Refusing to answer simply means that you are trying to hide your position. Are you doing this to continue to appeal to people who reject your position?

Only cults try to hide their views, Judas Maccabeas.

Of course, I speak as a fool, to make a point. I'd be ashamed to be seen unironically using these dishonest tactics in what's supposed to be a Christian discussion.

If this line of questioning feels unfair to you, I suggest you owe brothereicher a public apology for bullying him in exactly the same way, page after page.

This isn't a one-off incident, it's your modus operandi any time someone seriously challenges you. It isn't remotely Christian behavior, and you should expect other Christians to rebuke you when you do it.

In the interest of clarity, here's just one egregious example of what I'm talking about:

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.

To imply that brothereicher "refused to answer" your question is a blatantly false accusation and underlines your bad faith throughout this discussion.

Brothereicher answered your question over and over, with far more patience, detail, and clarity than your peevish and domineering demands warranted (and more graciously than you did when you felt your own views were being misrepresented).

What really happened is that you repeatedly asked a "gotcha" question that required explanation to address intelligently, then demanded that brothereicher limit his reply to a single word so you could make him look silly.

You're seemingly so used to shoving people around that you feel entitled to it. So when brothereicher didn't bow to your rigged ground rules (rules you couldn't follow yourself—I just checked), you apparently concluded that gives you license to lie about him.

I only know you on the Internet. But if the persona you play here represents you at all, you are Exhibit A for the cheerless, petty, heresy hunter who demands everyone submit to your definitions of the Gospel without ever showing a glimmer of evidence that the Gospel has done you any personal good at all.

And for someone as committed to the concept of eternal conscious torment as you are, that seems like a critique you'd be wise not to dismiss without prayerful consideration.

[Soloist]

I don’t even understand what is being argued about anymore. My suspicions lean towards anyone on Mennonet being a poor representation of Christ continue to build.

[Josh]

That’s quite an attack, jahertz.

I see a distinct lack of Christian charity in this thread.

I have met and spent plenty of time with both JM and jahertz, sat around a bonfire and chatted, spent the night at their house, talked on the phone for hours, and so on.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have theological disagreements. However, I think this level of personal attack is quite unbecoming and doesn’t match the people I thought I knew or had met.

I do think there are very real problems with FotW and Sattler, and it’s not like I’m the only one who thinks the is. Is it possible to discuss this without FotW’s defenders resorting to personal attacks?

I see patterns of using power to try to control and attacking anyone who disagrees with FotW’s dogma. This is exactly the kind of power structures you used to be dedicated to dismantling and exposing, jahertz.

[jahertz]

That’s quite an attack, jahertz.

I see a distinct lack of Christian charity in this thread.

I have met and spent plenty of time with both JM and jahertz, sat around a bonfire and chatted, spent the night at their house, talked on the phone for hours, and so on.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have theological disagreements. However, I think this level of personal attack is quite unbecoming and doesn’t match the people I thought I knew or had met.

I do think there are very real problems with FotW and Sattler, and it’s not like I’m the only one who thinks the is. Is it possible to discuss this without FotW’s defenders resorting to personal attacks?

I see patterns of using power to try to control and attacking anyone who disagrees with FotW’s dogma. This is exactly the kind of power structures you used to be dedicated to dismantling and exposing, jahertz.

I didn't rebuke JM for raising concerns with FOTW or Sattler, and neither of us are members of either institution, so that's a red herring at the moment.

As you know, I've been on this forum for many years, mostly as a lurker. I don't make public personal rebukes lightly, and this one is based on patterns I've observed for a very long time.

I trust readers to draw their own conclusions, as you have, about whether the rebuke is warranted and about who is guilty of abusing power in the present discussion. I don't care about winning a debate, only about discharging my duty to speak truth with the voice I've been given.

[RZehr]

I consider myself an Anabaptist.

What is the difference? Yes, or no?

No, I am not a Mennonite. I used to be Mennonite as well as Amish-Mennonite.
Yes, I am now an Anabaptist.

I assume you know the difference between these terms or are you wanting me to talk about the differences?

So you can’t answer yes or no? I’m just kidding, I only wanted to get in on the jolly yes/no fun.

[jahertz]

What is the difference? Yes, or no?

No, I am not a Mennonite. I used to be Mennonite as well as Amish-Mennonite.
Yes, I am now an Anabaptist.

I assume you know the difference between these terms or are you wanting me to talk about the differences?

So you can’t answer yes or no? I’m just kidding, I only wanted to get in on the jolly yes/no fun.

All I want to know is, when are you going to get serious and submit something substantial to this discussion? Yes or no?

[brothereicher]

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

Hypotheticals?

How is asking "Is baptism a requirement for salvation? Yes or no" a hypothetical?

Because it involves positing hypotheticals such as a hypothetical person who has heard the good news, accepts it, but is not yet baptised nor a church member or regular church attender yet.

Even asking about “salvation” involved a hypothetical; most people don’t die shortly after accepting Christ. But we can ask a hypothetical of “Would they spend eternity with Jesus, or eternity apart from him, if they did die at this instant?” That is usually what we mean we ask if someone is “saved”.

I personally prefer to focus on being saved from sin in the here and now, still on this earth, but people do die and eternal salvation does matter.

I did answer that question. I answered it in a fair amount of detail.

I said as follows:

"I'll be absolutely direct.

I believe that some people who are not baptized are on their way to heaven, and if they would die at this moment, they would be received into glory. I am not alone in this belief. Mike Miloni and Funny Kirivulla also hold this belief.

But, Josh is correct (Josh Good, not Fun City Josh), it's probably good to look at what we mean by being saved. I think salvation is more than "who is going to heaven and who isn't."

But if that's the narrow lens we're using, people are "saved" who are not baptized. It happened in the Bible, and it's happening now. Paul was "on his way to Heaven," before Ananias showed up. But Ananias STILL said, "(and this is interesting, because he tells him to do three things, which manifestly haven't happened yet, because otherwise, no need to command them) 1) Arise, and 2) be baptized, and 3) wash your sins away, calling on the name of the Lord.

So while Paul MAY have been "on the way to heaven," he had not YET arisen, NOR been baptized, nor yet had his sins been washed away."

This answers your question about "Would they spend eternity with Jesus, or eternity apart from him, if they did die at this instant?”

And immediately afterward, I was accused of refusing to answer the question and trying to hide my views. Anyone can go back and reread the conversation and see that this is true. I'll gladly retract if it can be demonstrated that this isn't a correct representation of the conversation.

So it doesn't really feel like a good faith discussion at this point.

[RZehr]

No, I am not a Mennonite. I used to be Mennonite as well as Amish-Mennonite.
Yes, I am now an Anabaptist.

I assume you know the difference between these terms or are you wanting me to talk about the differences?

So you can’t answer yes or no? I’m just kidding, I only wanted to get in on the jolly yes/no fun.

All I want to know is, when are you going to get serious and submit something substantial to this discussion? Yes or no?

Banana dancing sofa the. Please answer green or drywall.