Sattler College Turmoil

[joshuabgood]

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.

I wouldn't call you Reformed, and even if I thought you were, I would still consider you a brother in Christ . That said, the Reformed and protestant influence on SOT seems pretty clear to me. They regularly source articles from writers of these persuasions and the language used is also familiarly of this persuasion. The editor and assistant editor are influential theological voices at EBI where an anchor theological text is (or at least publicly was) Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology.

Still I would agree there are some significant differences between Grudem/Piper and SOT but the influence seems to be there to some of us.

[Josh]

Arguing against S&T for “reformed” and “Protestant” influence is equivalent to arguing against FotW for “Stone-Campbell” influence. The allegation might be true, but I don’t like how it’s some kind of automatic trump card, and if it is, we should be able to immediately write off a group that appears to be Church of Christ in plain clothes plus doctrines on marriage that Michael Sattler didn’t agree with.

[brothereicher]

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.

Hypotheticals?

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

[joshuabgood]

Arguing against S&T for “reformed” and “Protestant” influence is equivalent to arguing against FotW for “Stone-Campbell” influence. The allegation might be true, but I don’t like how it’s some kind of automatic trump card, and if it is, we should be able to immediately write off a group that appears to be Church of Christ in plain clothes plus doctrines on marriage that Michael Sattler didn’t agree with.

I agree with this. I wouldn't write either group off apriori. I think we can learn from everyone.

[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?

[RZehr]

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

I consider myself an Anabaptist.

What is the difference? Yes, or no?

[silentreader]

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.

Okay thanks. I think that understanding seems a bit forced as well, but that's fine. I don't see any mention of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, (or further) but perhaps I missed it. It also illustrates deliverance as well as a further spiritual application.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

I wouldn't call you Reformed, and even if I thought you were, I would still consider you a brother in Christ . That said, the Reformed and protestant influence on SOT seems pretty clear to me. They regularly source articles from writers of these persuasions and the language used is also familiarly of this persuasion. The editor and assistant editor are influential theological voices at EBI where an anchor theological text is (or at least publicly was) Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology.

Still I would agree there are some significant differences between Grudem/Piper and SOT but the influence seems to be there to some of us.

Toccoa Falls college used Grudem’s book while my oldest daughter was there. I would hardly call them reformed. The unfortunate fact is, that most of the systematic theology book available are written by reformed authors, they seem to be quite good at it. When I was in grad. school, we used Erickson, who is also reformed, but not as much so as Grudem. The only completely non reformed systematic theology I have on my shelf is Pardington’s outline studies. It is just difficult to source a textbook for systematic theology, and Grudem is likely the best out there. I in fact own a copy, that I have had since school. I put it between Kauffman’s “Docterines of the Bible” and Pardington just for effect.

Calling me reformed is a bit ironic. Reformed University Fellowship wanted to merge with the Chinese ministry I taught for for 12 years. The condition-while not explicitly spelled out, my wife, myself, and one of the leaders, who was Grace Brethren had to go. We were unacceptable to them. Merger did not happen, in reality my suspicion was they were more interested in our building than us.

So people who are really reformed, rejected me as anti-reformed, what basis does anyone who is not reformed have to call me reformed? I could not and would not affirm any of their doctrinal formations. I think this has become a pejorative that people thoughtlessly throw around, without understanding how it is defined by those who have the right to define it.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

[Ernie]

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

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?