Sattler College Turmoil

[brothereicher]

So therefor it follows that one who is not”born “ is not saved. You are deliberately trying to obscure your view that an unbaptized person is not saved. Someone who is not born does not live.

Once again, I will repeat Josh’s question. Yes or no. No weasel words please.

I'm spending an awful amount of time here for someone who is allegedly trying to obscure their view.

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.

I've been as clear as I know how to be.

Once again you obscure what is a simple question. Yes we know that God is without beginning or end or succession of moments, and to him, all time is one. Is baptism a requirement for salvation? 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.

I really don't like having to invoke this, but apparently we're there.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no.

Only abusers avoid this simple question.

[jahertz]

I'm echoing FOTW's position in the S&T articles which say that just as life doesn't begin at birth, so spiritual life doesn't begin at baptism. Life begins at conception. And the work of the Spirit begins prior to baptism. No one can know the moment that happens.

But baptism is the end-point of that process, and is analogous to birth.

You've said it before, but I think it's worth highlighting again here: I think there's one central reason Josh and Judas and other Protestant Fundamentalists often find it so difficult to comprehend pre-Reformation views, like this one, that that are both straightforward and squarely within historic Christian small-"o" orthodoxy.

I think a huge barrier to comprehending premodern Christian thought is the modernist mental habit of reductionism—the belief that we can best get at the nature of things by taking them apart and weighing and measuring the disconnected pieces.

When ancients sought earthly analogies for spiritual concepts, they tended to turn to organic, living systems full of mystery and ambiguity: germinating seeds, singing stars, the love between a shepherd and a lost lamb, the relations between good and bad kings and their subjects. The travail of a woman giving birth.

When modernists seek earthly analogies for spiritual concepts, they gravitate instead to the black and white, binary frameworks of the courtroom or the machine.

Biblical texts are parsed like legal documents. Salvation gets reduced to a computer program: input this, THEN this, THEN believe this, and IF all is done in the correct order, the system will return a success: ELSE, it returns a fatal error.

Compared to the older, messier, more relational paradigm that gave birth to Christianity, a tragic consequence of the modern approach is that it's easy to master the formula (and be celebrated for that mastery) without ever entering the transformative, living process of salvation at all.

This has led to a Christian landscape littered with sour, self-important, thin-skinned, humorless theologians, full of correct formulas, eager to preside at heresy trials, but devoid of the fruit of the Spirit.

For the machine thinker, "by their fruits you shall know them" is a frustrating rule. It's hard to reduce to an algorithm and win online debates with. You can't kill it with formaldehyde and nail it to a card. So in practice it tends to be ignored, in favor of oversimplified formulas easier to repurpose as whips and cudgels.

But fruit-bearing, not correct articulation of formulas, is the key rule of thumb Jesus and Paul both gave us for distinguishing true heirs of the Kingdom from imposters.

What if all rank and file Christians began following this rule today? What if we all refused to give a serious hearing to any teacher who is ungenerous, petty, vindictive, angry, closed-minded, quick to accuse and resistant to unity?

I suspect the power dynamics of many churches—and plenty of Internet forums too—would look dramatically different tomorrow.

[barnhart]

Solid post JAHertz, but reading through the Sword and Trumpet correspondence I think both parties could be seen as committing the error you describe, mechanising theology to reconcile tensions in the scriptures that might be best left as tensions. Tension holds up buildings and bridges, it has it's place, for no other reason than to keep us humble and prevent us from calling each other heretics, which is where that discussion finally went.

That said, I fall slightly on the Sword and Trumpet "side" in the sense that I am not a sacramentalist and see the ordinances (sacraments) as symbolic (but not separable in common practice) of the inner reality.

[brothereicher]

Solid post JAHertz, but reading through the Sword and Trumpet correspondence I think both parties could be seen as committing the error you describe, mechanising theology to reconcile tensions in the scriptures that might be best left as tensions. Tension holds up buildings and bridges, it has it's place, for no other reason than to keep us humble and prevent us from calling each other heretics, which is where that discussion finally went.

That said, I fall slightly on the Sword and Trumpet "side" in the sense that I am not a sacramentalist and see the ordinances (sacraments) as symbolic (but not separable in common practice) of the inner reality.

I like this a lot, even though I'm on the other "side."

Part of why I like sacramentalism, at least in some of its forms, is that it feels built to hold those mysterious tensions.

That's why I like the Anglican view of sacramentalism expressed in the Articles of Religion much better than the RCC formulations.

The Anglican view says, "We believe this happens, and we're not exactly sure how, but we accept it by faith."

The RCC view is very dogmatic regarding the details.

[Josh]

You've said it before, but I think it's worth highlighting again here: I think there's one central reason Josh and Judas and other Protestant Fundamentalists often find it so difficult to comprehend pre-Reformation views, like this one, that that are both straightforward and squarely within historic Christian small-"o" orthodoxy.

JM can speak for himself, but I am not a “Protestant Fundamentalist”, nor is my denomination, whose doctrine hasn’t essentially changed since 1859. I am quite familiar with pre-Reformation views and those who put up with listening me to debate and advocating in person provably would agree I spend most my time denouncing modernism, the Protestant Reformation, and American-style fundamentalist evangelicalism.

I think a huge barrier to comprehending premodern Christian thought is the modernist mental habit of reductionism—the belief that we can best get at the nature of things by taking them apart and weighing and measuring the disconnected pieces.

Which I’m not doing. (Perhaps JM takes a more systematic approach.) I have often described salvation as a mystery, and a mystery which can only begin to be comprehended by experiencing it. There is no formula or ritual to guarantee or acquire salvation. Instead, it comes through very simple faith and simple obedience and ultimately trust for a “hope of salvation”. Church membership, saying the sinners’ prayer, or being baptised the “right” way by the “right” people aren’t what does it.

When ancients sought earthly analogies for spiritual concepts, they tended to turn to organic, living systems full of mystery and ambiguity: germinating seeds, singing stars, the love between a shepherd and a lost lamb, the relations between good and bad kings and their subjects. The travail of a woman giving birth.

When modernists seek earthly analogies for spiritual concepts, they gravitate instead to the black and white, binary frameworks of the courtroom or the machine.

Biblical texts are parsed like legal documents. Salvation gets reduced to a computer program: input this, THEN this, THEN believe this, and IF all is done in the correct order, the system will return a success: ELSE, it returns a fatal error.

Compared to the older, messier, more relational paradigm that gave birth to Christianity, a tragic consequence of the modern approach is that it's easy to master the formula (and be celebrated for that mastery) without ever entering the transformative, living process of salvation at all.

This has led to a Christian landscape littered with sour, self-important, thin-skinned, humorless theologians, full of correct formulas, eager to preside at heresy trials, but devoid of the fruit of the Spirit.

For the machine thinker, "by their fruits you shall know them" is a frustrating rule. It's hard to reduce to an algorithm and win online debates with. You can't kill it with formaldehyde and nail it to a card. So in practice it tends to be ignored, in favor of oversimplified formulas easier to repurpose as whips and cudgels.

But fruit-bearing, not correct articulation of formulas, is the key rule of thumb Jesus and Paul both gave us for distinguishing true heirs of the Kingdom from imposters.

What if all rank and file Christians began following this rule today? What if we all refused to give a serious hearing to any teacher who is ungenerous, petty, vindictive, angry, closed-minded, quick to accuse and resistant to unity?

Anthony, it may be prudent to take a look at the institution and the notable figures in it. One of the reasons I have been vocal about my criticism of FotW and Sattler is…

I suspect the power dynamics of many churches—and plenty of Internet forums too—would look dramatically different tomorrow.

I have seen ungenerousity, pettiness, vindictiveness, anger, close-mindedness, accusations, and divisiveness, not unity. In particular, the way Taylor was treated struck me as uncharitable. I saw the raw exercise of power - taking away someone’s place to live. The raw power is exactly what you and I have had many fruitful discussion about, as being the genesis of systems of power and control that eventually lead to systems that abuse and cover up abuse.

As far as systematic, logical doctrine goes… I recall Milioni having a rolled-up paper chart with a flowchart for how to determine if someone is divorced and remarried, at KFW (2015 or 2017? Can’t remember which one.) I appreciated his zeal to discern the truth rightly, but I also feared such a systematic, modernist approach.

Eventually, I decided to decamp and make my home where I saw new believers being inducted in to living Christ-filled lives and focus less on “perfect” doctrine and practice. I gave up my dream of living in a common purse community, for example. I also yielded myself to when the Lord was encouraging me to associate with Apostolic Pentecostals. I don’t like their doctrine or practice, but I do see them bearing a great deal of good fruit. Ultimately, I feel the Lord led me to an Anabaptist group as my permanent home, though - I will leave one more quote from Milioni:

“John Holdeman was a false prophet, inspired by demons.”

[jahertz]

Solid post JAHertz, but reading through the Sword and Trumpet correspondence I think both parties could be seen as committing the error you describe, mechanising theology to reconcile tensions in the scriptures that might be best left as tensions. Tension holds up buildings and bridges, it has it's place, for no other reason than to keep us humble and prevent us from calling each other heretics, which is where that discussion finally went.

That said, I fall slightly on the Sword and Trumpet "side" in the sense that I am not a sacramentalist and see the ordinances (sacraments) as symbolic (but not separable in common practice) of the inner reality.

I wouldn't argue with this, especially since both Matthew and Finny take a more fundamentalist approach to scripture and application than I do.

Still, I think the more fundamentalist/modernist one's default mode of thought, the harder it is to make sense of the tensions and paradoxes that give scripture and Christian tradition so much of its depth and richness.

[ohio jones]

Solid post JAHertz, but reading through the Sword and Trumpet correspondence I think both parties could be seen as committing the error you describe, mechanising theology to reconcile tensions in the scriptures that might be best left as tensions. Tension holds up buildings and bridges, it has it's place, for no other reason than to keep us humble and prevent us from calling each other heretics, which is where that discussion finally went.

That said, I fall slightly on the Sword and Trumpet "side" in the sense that I am not a sacramentalist and see the ordinances (sacraments) as symbolic (but not separable in common practice) of the inner reality.

You know, I'm something of a tensioned non-sacramentalist myself.

In the question of saved vs. unsaved as well as sacramental vs. anti-sacramental, there seems to be something going on in the middle (between unregenerate and fully regenerate; between spiritual reality and physical symbol) that we cannot fully understand even when we are convinced we understand the endpoints.

[joshuabgood]

Solid post JAHertz, but reading through the Sword and Trumpet correspondence I think both parties could be seen as committing the error you describe, mechanising theology to reconcile tensions in the scriptures that might be best left as tensions. Tension holds up buildings and bridges, it has it's place, for no other reason than to keep us humble and prevent us from calling each other heretics, which is where that discussion finally went.

That said, I fall slightly on the Sword and Trumpet "side" in the sense that I am not a sacramentalist and see the ordinances (sacraments) as symbolic (but not separable in common practice) of the inner reality.

I am on the SOT side as well...but for different reasons. Though I did think the the FOTW side, connecting portions of SOT thinking/talking points with Protestant thought, had some points that "stuck" as it were. For instance the FOTW critique of "faith alone" and noting the connection of Calvinistic criticism toward historically Anabaptist theology...

Still, it seems obvious to me that baptism is a powerful metaphor that symbolizes new birth (which also by the way is a metaphor). The Spirit of God is a great mystery. Who can tell where and how it blows...

Also your cousin Steven is big on first things and second things. And in this case I think simple faith, as SOT notes, is a first thing and baptism is a second thing.

[jahertz]

in this case I think simple faith, as SOT notes, is a first thing and baptism is a second thing.

While I don't know exactly how Steven uses these terms in this context, I'm inclined to think this is a statement all present could affirm.

All Christians believe faith is a gift from God and a prerequisite to spiritual life. The main quibble JM and S&T have with the FOTW position, as far as I can tell, is not that it denies the essential role of faith in salvation, but that it affirms a secondary role for the human action motivated by that faith.

The Reformed doctrine S&T is demanding all Anabaptists adopt in place of the theology which formed the movement denies any role for human agency in the process of salvation. In its wooden and mechanistic attempt to reduce everything to an algorithm, it seemingly cannot conceive of God receiving all glory while inviting humans to participate meaningfully with him in the process of our own redemption.

Respectfully, in my view this is where reformed theology, for all its helpful innovations, jumped the shark. This allergy to the concept of a human partnership with God in salvation is an artificially imposed product of human philosophy that writes entire themes of the Gospel out of existence.

(It's also led to the fascinating development that we now have a publication like S&T, driven by crusaders like JM, clamoring for the suppression of their own founders' beliefs in the name of sectarian purity, as they advance the exact doctrines their founders were hunted and murdered for rejecting. Ah, the spaghetti-like convolutions of history.)

[barnhart]

Respectfully, in my view this is where reformed theology, for all its helpful innovations, jumped the shark. This allergy to the concept of a human partnership with God in salvation is an artificially imposed product of human philosophy that writes entire themes of the Gospel out of existence.

Agreed.