Why Obey ?

General Christian Theology
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

Josh wrote:But Jesus never described "repentance" as mere mental assent or signing up for a new belief system; his model was "Go and sin no more."
I agree. I don't either. And most evangelicals don't either - IMO. See just a couple more examples.

https://carm.org/questions/about-doctri ... ll-we-want
https://www.gty.org/library/questions/Q ... ving-faith
His message generally was, "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish." Now he did say that all who believed on him would experience freedom and living water and be delivered from their sins, but his model seems to be more "Those who believe in me will have the power to stop sinning", as opposed to merely "Those who believe me won't have to have any consequences for their ongoing sin."
I agree we can overcome sin - we don't have to live in sin, or under the power of sin, etc. The Holy Spirit brings in a change of heart and a new attitude towards sin. Christians do not live in willful sin, or follow sin and Christ at the same time. Sometimes it sounds like you believe it is possible to live entirely sinlessly, but if not, maybe we don't really disagree on this point. I said earlier that we sin daily, which I stand by - that doesn't mean we live in sin; but neither do we live in fear every day that we committed some sort of sin which will cause us to lose our salvation. Even Tertullian said this:
It is a fact that there are some sins which beset us every day and to which we all are tempted. For who will not, as it may chance, fall into unrighteous anger and continue this even beyond sundown, or even strike another or, out of easy habit, curse another, or swear rashly, or violate his pledged faith, or tell a lie through shame or the compulsion of circumstances? In the management of affairs, in the performance of duties, in commercial transactions, while eating, looking, listening — how often we are tempted! So much so that if there were no pardon in such cases, no one would be saved. For these sins, then, pardon is granted through Christ who intercedes with the Father. [from On Purity 19]
The Protestant view, which Luther assembled, is that Jesus took all the consequences of sin and thus there are no more consequences for us as long as have the right mental assent to the right belief system. That is, unfortunately, the core of Evangelicalism today, and leads to such nonsense ideas as that Old Order Amish are not "saved".
I really don't think it's nonsense. Many Old Order are saved - hopefully a growing number. But many are not. You speak of "mental assent" - that is exactly what happens with some of the Amish. They mentally assent to the proposition that Jesus died and rose again - but they place their faith in their own works and in the church standards for salvation. "Some" not all. If they think God balances their good works and bad works on a scale, and they have to make sure there are more good works than bad, they are probably not saved; if they don't have assurance of salvation, but only hope they have been "good enough", they are probably not saved. If they frown on people teaching the necessity of being born again, they are probably not saved. My grandpa and grandma, who grew up in the Old Order, were not saved when they joined the church and were married in the early 1940s. They spoke to some friends who were learning of the need to be born again, and went to some revival meetings and heard the gospel, and were saved. And for that, they were excommunicated. Much of my grandpa's family had almost nothing to do with him for most of his life.(My grandparents became members at the "King Church" in Hartville, an Amish church similar to the New Order but a bit more liberal).
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Adam »

Paul wrote:
Josh wrote:One of the hallmarks of "Protestant Salvation" is focusing exclusively on the book of John, ignoring the testimony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think all 4 gospels are needed.

They all, taken together, stress these things:

- Jesus offers to save us from sin

- Saving includes here right now and in the future

- It's a free gift - all we have to do is believe and obey.

- We are free to choose not to obey, but then we will not be one of his followers

- The sign of belief is obedience
So you'd rather cut out the Gospel of John? Isn't the entire Bible Divine truth, inspired by the Holy Spirit?

But again, it's not like Matthews, Marks and Lukes Gospel and Johns Gospel are rivals of each other, all are divinely true and should be taken as such, not played out against each other.


Paul, if you reread what Josh said above, you will see that he says all 4 gospels are needed. He is not saying that we should cut out the Gospel of John. The problem is that John is often quoted to the exclusion of what the other gospels say about salvation. For example, how often do you hear a gospel presentation that is based on Matthew 25:31-46 or even one that is based on John 15:1-17? It goes back to the fact that 'believe' is a less than desirable translation of πιστεύω, especially when πιστεύω is used to refer to faith in a person. The whole component of faithfulness as a part of faith is missed. That is where the other gospels help bring out the full meaning of πιστεύω. That is also why Matthew 25:31-46 is in perfect alignment with John 6:29 (“This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent"). True belief in Christ requires faithful obedience to his teachings.

Martin Luther, whose thinking undergirds Protestant thinking, said in his introduction to the New Testament that the gospel of John was to be far preferred to the other gospels because it had the true essence of the gospel while Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't. Similarly, Paul is to be preferred over James, which he called an 'epistle of straw'. The result is the easy-believism that can, on the one hand, claim faith in Christ, while on the other hand, persist in sin. The attitude is that whether I continue in sin or not is not really important since all my sins were forgiven. It is that attitude that prompted Martin Luther to say, "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly." It is that attitude that Anabaptist teaching is completely against.
Paul wrote:I think it's sad the way you are stroking with a very broad brush to put down "Protestants", and being so divisive over basic Biblical truths that I'd think that we can all agree on.


That is just the point. We don't all agree. The typical Anabaptist view of salvation is quite different than the typical Protestant view. This forum is more often going to present the typical Anabaptist view. My question is, Are you here to learn about Anabaptist views of things such as salvation, or are you here to convert people to the Protestant view?
0 x
Paul
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:33 pm
Affiliation:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Paul »

Adam wrote: That is just the point. We don't all agree. The typical Anabaptist view of salvation is quite different than the typical Protestant view. This forum is more often going to present the typical Anabaptist view. My question is, Are you here to learn about Anabaptist views of things such as salvation, or are you here to convert people to the Protestant view?
I know very well what Anabaptists believe, and there is alot I agree with. I am just here to discuss the Scriptures, and I am not the one that is dragging in Martin Luther or John Calvin to make a point, I care more about what the Scriptures say than what any of these men - Anabaptist or Protestant - say. Are you open to listen to and discuss what the Scriptures say with fellow believers? Or do you just want to hear your own views affirmed..?
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

Josh wrote:I'm more than willing to paint Protestantism with a pretty broad brush, considering these are the actions of the founders of it:

1. King Henry the VIII started the Anglican church so that he can get yet another divorce from one of his many wives and marry a new wife. The Catholic Church refused to grant him a divorce and remarriage, so he split off and made his own church. This is one of the major branches of Protestantism.

2. Luther separated from the Catholic church, and then went and established his own state church, often quite violently so. He was more than willing to persecute and kill anyone who disagreed with him.

3. Calvin likewise established a new state church, and killed anyone who disagreed with him.

For reference, here is the generally agreed academic distinction between these branches:

Image

The Anabaptists represented by people like Blaurock, Simons, Grebels, and Philips had a very different approach than identifying specific belief systems or creeds; mental assent to a belief system was not the focus nearly as much as simply reading what Jesus and the apostles said, and then just going and doing it, starting with adult baptism.
They are not responsible for what people did hundreds of years ago.

Do you think making their views say what you want them to say is honest? That's hardly a productive way to have a dialogue. I'd file it under, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Adam »

Paul wrote:
Adam wrote: That is just the point. We don't all agree. The typical Anabaptist view of salvation is quite different than the typical Protestant view. This forum is more often going to present the typical Anabaptist view. My question is, Are you here to learn about Anabaptist views of things such as salvation, or are you here to convert people to the Protestant view?
I know very well what Anabaptists believe, and there is alot I agree with. I am just here to discuss the Scriptures, and I am not the one that is dragging in Martin Luther or John Calvin to make a point, I care more about what the Scriptures say than what any of these men - Anabaptist or Protestant - say. Are you open to listen to and discuss what the Scriptures say with fellow believers? Or do you just want to hear your own views affirmed..?
But there are a lot of places where you can discuss the Scriptures. Why have you chosen MennonNet to do so? I imagine that it is either (1) to learn more about Anabaptist belief and practice or (2) to try to correct Anabaptists where you believe they are wrong. (Or maybe a bit of both.)

As for me, I am definitely open and have changed or clarified a lot of what I believe through interactions with people on this forum. For example, when I was first came to this forum, I could not understand why Conservative Anabaptists dress the way they do, since, from my perspective, it prevented outsiders from coming to the church. But through interaction on this forum and particularly through some comments that Ernie and Wade made, I have come to see and understand (and increasingly support) the Conservative Anabaptist perspective. Also, just recently, I asked some questions about the Sabbath, and Josh and Bootstrap both gave my good insight that Gentiles were never told to obey the Laws of Moses and they also helped me to reconsider what Galatians had to say on the matter. I have learned and grown in many other ways as well. My views have been radically challenged and altered over the past year, and I am so thankful for this forum in helping me work through my understanding of the Scriptures.

The reason we discuss Luther and Calvin is because their views are the foundation of the type of Scriptural interpretation that you are promoting in this thread and that you have promoted in other threads. For example, when you talked about the gospel on this thread, you naturally went to John (and only John). That springs directly from Luther who promoted John to the exclusion of the other gospels. You may not have been doing so with a conscious recognition, but that is the point, Luther's influence is so ingrained in Protestantism, that we don't even realize it when he is influencing us. But interpretation coming from Luther's perspective is at odds with Anabaptist interpretation and practice. That is why I asked you if you are here to learn about Anabaptism or convert people to Protestant views. If you are here to learn, this will be a great place to discuss things. If you are here to convert, then you will probably find yourself bumping heads with people a lot.
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by GaryK »

buckeyematt2 wrote:
Josh wrote:I'm more than willing to paint Protestantism with a pretty broad brush, considering these are the actions of the founders of it:

1. King Henry the VIII started the Anglican church so that he can get yet another divorce from one of his many wives and marry a new wife. The Catholic Church refused to grant him a divorce and remarriage, so he split off and made his own church. This is one of the major branches of Protestantism.

2. Luther separated from the Catholic church, and then went and established his own state church, often quite violently so. He was more than willing to persecute and kill anyone who disagreed with him.

3. Calvin likewise established a new state church, and killed anyone who disagreed with him.

For reference, here is the generally agreed academic distinction between these branches:

Image

The Anabaptists represented by people like Blaurock, Simons, Grebels, and Philips had a very different approach than identifying specific belief systems or creeds; mental assent to a belief system was not the focus nearly as much as simply reading what Jesus and the apostles said, and then just going and doing it, starting with adult baptism.
They are not responsible for what people did hundreds of years ago.

Do you think making their views say what you want them to say is honest? That's hardly a productive way to have a dialogue. I'd file it under, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
buckeyematt2, I'm wondering if you have read David Bercot's book "The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down" and if you have what your thoughts are about it?

I don't know what your thoughts are about the direction of many "conservative Anabaptist" churches, but I believe one of the big reasons for what I consider a wrong direction stems directly back to the attempt to assimilate the Protestant Evangelical "gospel" into an Anabaptist worldview. It has produced a hybrid that, in my view, hasn't had a good outcome.

I think there is an endeavor being made by some to rediscover the "heirloom" variety of Kingdom Christianity Bercot writes about in his book. It's been a while since I've read the book but I believe radical obedience to the teachings of Jesus is a pretty major thread throughout.
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

Adam wrote:Martin Luther, whose thinking undergirds Protestant thinking, said in his introduction to the New Testament that the gospel of John was to be far preferred to the other gospels because it had the true essence of the gospel while Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't. Similarly, Paul is to be preferred over James, which he called an 'epistle of straw'. The result is the easy-believism that can, on the one hand, claim faith in Christ, while on the other hand, persist in sin. The attitude is that whether I continue in sin or not is not really important since all my sins were forgiven. It is that attitude that prompted Martin Luther to say, "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly." It is that attitude that Anabaptist teaching is completely against.
Luther was a contradiction wrapped in an enigma...on the one hand, he asserted Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, he basically assigned levels of inspiration or importance to various Scriptures depending on how he felt about them. Zwingli and Calvin, and of course the Anabaptists, didn't do this.
That is just the point. We don't all agree. The typical Anabaptist view of salvation is quite different than the typical Protestant view. This forum is more often going to present the typical Anabaptist view. My question is, Are you here to learn about Anabaptist views of things such as salvation, or are you here to convert people to the Protestant view?
Not that different, IMO. Mostly a matter of emphasis, misunderstandings, and rejecting a couple possible permutations of the other. Old Order theology is not evangelical, but Beachy theology - since the "evangelical transformation" of the mid-1900's - is; Anabaptists reject Calvinism and antinominianism, but so do some evangelicals, as that's not synonomous with evangelical.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Josh »

buckeyematt2 wrote:Not that different, IMO. Mostly a matter of emphasis, misunderstandings, and rejecting a couple possible permutations of the other. Old Order theology is not evangelical, but Beachy theology - since the "evangelical transformation" of the mid-1900's - is; Anabaptists reject Calvinism and antinominianism, but so do some evangelicals, as that's not synonomous with evangelical.
One of the challenges of moderate-conservative theology (which includes Beachy theology, but I am not at all picking on Beachys for this, as other groups like Midwest, Charity, or Apostolic Christian all have the exact same trend happening) is that we end up teaching people a generic American evangelical belief system, but don't do much of a job of imparting conservative Anabaptist beliefs at all.

So a great deal of people who grow up in a Beachy or other moderate-conservative setting end up feeling completely comfortable leaving that setting and migrating to a generic American evangelical church. This phenomenon keeps happening over and over where I live.

Ultimately, it's disheartening to observe people who grew up in an ostensibly conservative church start carrying guns for self defence, deeply imbibe of all manner of TV/movie, abandon the veiling, and start to dress exactly like the world does. We need to be honest that evangelical thinking and this assimilation to the world go hand-in-hand.
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by MattY »

GaryK wrote:
buckeyematt2 wrote:
Josh wrote:I'm more than willing to paint Protestantism with a pretty broad brush, considering these are the actions of the founders of it:

1. King Henry the VIII started the Anglican church so that he can get yet another divorce from one of his many wives and marry a new wife. The Catholic Church refused to grant him a divorce and remarriage, so he split off and made his own church. This is one of the major branches of Protestantism.

2. Luther separated from the Catholic church, and then went and established his own state church, often quite violently so. He was more than willing to persecute and kill anyone who disagreed with him.

3. Calvin likewise established a new state church, and killed anyone who disagreed with him.

For reference, here is the generally agreed academic distinction between these branches:

Image

The Anabaptists represented by people like Blaurock, Simons, Grebels, and Philips had a very different approach than identifying specific belief systems or creeds; mental assent to a belief system was not the focus nearly as much as simply reading what Jesus and the apostles said, and then just going and doing it, starting with adult baptism.
They are not responsible for what people did hundreds of years ago.

Do you think making their views say what you want them to say is honest? That's hardly a productive way to have a dialogue. I'd file it under, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
buckeyematt2, I'm wondering if you have read David Bercot's book "The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down" and if you have what your thoughts are about it?

I don't know what your thoughts are about the direction of many "conservative Anabaptist" churches, but I believe one of the big reasons for what I consider a wrong direction stems directly back to the attempt to assimilate the Protestant Evangelical "gospel" into an Anabaptist worldview. It has produced a hybrid that, in my view, hasn't had a good outcome.

I think there is an endeavor being made by some to rediscover the "heirloom" variety of Kingdom Christianity Bercot writes about in his book. It's been a while since I've read the book but I believe radical obedience to the teachings of Jesus is a pretty major thread throughout.
I did read it, and have it at home...I'd have to review it again. If I remember correctly, I didn't always agree with him - particularly where he disparaged the hymn, "On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand", and some other theological nuances. (I'd have to review the section on Pelagius and Augustine as well to see if he comes down in favor of Pelagius, or in between). But I thought it was a good call to kingdom living overall.

While I'm a member of a Beachy congregation, my own views are somewhere in the range of the BMA or maybe the Oasis Tabernacle in Sugarcreek, OH. So personally, I see a lot of recent changes (both in standards, and in emphasis on grace rather than works, etc.) as good things, becoming more Biblical rather than traditional, and as necessary correctives to some holdover Amish thinking and traditions. I understand some NMB's here (not saying you are an NMB, I don't know) approach it from the other angle, where Anabaptism is a necessary correction to things in mainline evangelicalism, so they might be more inclined to conservative attitudes and rejection of evangelicalism. And a question for you - Where and how do you think something started to go wrong? Just considering the Beachys as an example, what do you think about the revivalist or "evangelical" transformation of the Beachys in the mid-1900s - did something go wrong there? Should they have stayed more Old Order? After all, the revivalists borrowed theology from Mennonite evangelists who in turn borrowed from Protestants.
http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Beachy ... _1946-1977
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Why Obey ?

Post by Sudsy »

Paul wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Here is a question - If someone says 'why should I become a Christ follower ?' what would your answer be ?
My answer would be, because the righteous wrath of God abides on you because of your sin, and you will have to stand before the Holy Judge of the universe when you die. You see if people come to faith for that reason, because they truly have repented from their sin, and fear God, they will not fall away when hardship comes. The reason they started to believe was not because of any temporal benefits, the reason was to escape the wrath to come and to strive to enter into the Kingdom and receive eternal life.

I have heard the comparison made with people sitting on an airplane, one person is told he should put on his parachute because it will improve his flight, he eventually puts it on, but after a while he notices that it isn't really as comfortable as he thought.. also people start laughing at him for having on a parachute, so he takes it off and throws it aside.. he even feels a bit cheated by the one that told him it would improve his flight. Another man is given a parachute, but is told that the plane is going to crash soon and he will need that parachute to save his life, well the man puts it on and no matter how the other passengers ridicule him, he refuses to let go of it because he knows the reason he put on his parachute is the jump that is to come, and his life is more dear to him than whether or not he has a comfortable flight. Likewise we need to put on the Lord Jesus Christ - our parachute of salvation so to speak - for the right reasons.

Now I know you are not talking about the prosperity Gospel, and not purely about temporal happiness in a worldly sense. I think you are talking about provoking others to jealousy by Kingdom living, and yes I hope we can provoke others to jealousy by living a God fearing, pure, obedient and holy life, filled with love towards God and our neighbour. But even though God can use all means to draw people to Himself, I think most people might not be drawn that way (or drawn into a superficial faith), unless it's a spouse or someone very close to them they can't get around, as in the case of your father. Because unbelievers by nature simply do not desire God or a godly life. Imo our message to an unbelieving world should be to flee the wrath to come, and our life and behavior should undergird that message because we ourselves live holy lives, taking up our cross, striving to enter into Gods Kingdom, seperate from the world. That way, when people do come to put their trust in Jesus Christ, it will be for the right reasons, not for a simple lifestyle or a sense of a loving community, but to truly follow Him, and receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Thanks Paul. I had a busy day so just getting around to responding.

'Why should I become a Christ follower ?' was the question and your answer was to avoid the wrath of God to come on you for your sins.

Question - Are there any examples of the apostles preaching about the wrath to come and the need to escape it ? Seems to me (as my father would preach) that if Jesus taught the apostles on how to be fishers of men, they would have been preaching throughout Acts that you should become a Christ follower because if you don't a hell of unending punishing in fire awaits you. If this is what the apostles believed then it doesn't add up that they were not begging people to repent so they wouldn't go there. But they didn't. And it doesn't add up if we believe this and do not do the same, right ?

It seems to me the Gospel preached by the apostles was one dealing more with the power sin in it's current form ('save yourselves from this untoward generation') than it was ultimate judgment and punishment. Whatever, Jesus did say about hell did not appear to me to get into their evangelism. I wonder what the apostles would think if they heard Jonathan Edwards sermon 'In the Hands of an Angry God' ? Scare the hell out of people, so to speak.

Myself I prefer to answer the question with something more along the line of the loving offer Jesus gives us of eternal life with Him. But then again I favour annihilation after a judgment and a just response from a loving God.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply