Do Reformed Anabaptists exist?

[JohnH]

I sure do hope He doesn’t change his mind about how a man is justified. Otherwise we’re all in big trouble!

Well, we used to be justified by engaging in animal sacrifices.

God decided he wanted to change that, and sent us not only Jesus, but also the New Testament.

Now we are justified a different way.

I am comfortable with God doing whatever he wants and trusting that he is good.

[Esdras]

Well, we used to be justified by engaging in animal sacrifices.

Friend, Hebrews 10:4 paints a very different picture here.

Now we are justified a different way.

And here..

I am comfortable with God doing whatever he wants and trusting that he is good.

But on this we are agreed.

[Neto]

JohnH has pointed out several (or at least two) basic (and very important) points of difference between Calvinistic (Reformed) theology and anabaptist understanding of Scripture - We don't make up systematic theologies (neither corporately or privately); and I think he also mentions that we do not have a determined preoccupation to understand the HOW of atonement. (This latter issue or desire seems to occupy much of the attention of those who ascribe to one systematic theology or another, and this reveals the basic difference that we are willing to accept mystery. We do not insist that every truth of Scripture be delineated in a humanly theoretical or 'logical' manner.) The WHO and WHY questions are the important ones, and unfortunately every 'Theory of the Atonement' largely fail to even mention, or certainly not focus on these vital primary questions.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’ll be honest, I can’t imagine how the gospel works apart from PSA. Christ Jesus took the wrath of God that I deserved upon Himself on the Cross, and I’m forever grateful.

This would be another very large gap between Anabaptism and Reformed thinking.

Penal substitutionary atonement, as taught in the Reformed view, makes the claim that God was very angry and full of wrath because of men's sin, and he just had to take it out on someone.

So somehow he took it out on himself and this satisfied his wrath, in some kind of oddball exercise in self-flagellation.

Some of us find this not only doesn't make very much sense but we do not find this to be supported in scripture.

I suppose He didn’t have to, but ultimately chose to, as evidenced by Him choosing which universe to actualize. This would be the same difficulty I have with the notion of libertarian free will, defined as the ability to make free choices without coercion of any kind, and to make choices contrary to our nature or desire.

What is the essence of our nature?

[Soloist]

I’ll be honest, I can’t imagine how the gospel works apart from PSA. Christ Jesus took the wrath of God that I deserved upon Himself on the Cross, and I’m forever grateful.

This would be another very large gap between Anabaptism and Reformed thinking.

Penal substitutionary atonement, as taught in the Reformed view, makes the claim that God was very angry and full of wrath because of men's sin, and he just had to take it out on someone.

So somehow he took it out on himself and this satisfied his wrath, in some kind of oddball exercise in self-flagellation.

Some of us find this not only doesn't make very much sense but we do not find this to be supported in scripture.

I suppose He didn’t have to, but ultimately chose to, as evidenced by Him choosing which universe to actualize. This would be the same difficulty I have with the notion of libertarian free will, defined as the ability to make free choices without coercion of any kind, and to make choices contrary to our nature or desire.

Maybe Peter freely chose to deny Christ thrice. But there was never a chance our Lord could’ve been a false prophet when He prophesied that Peter would choose that course of action. If, in Him, all things live and move and have their being, and if, from beginning to end, the Lord Jesus Christ has declared these things, then the Triune God must have made some fairly comprehensive decisions before the Garden.

If God declared the end from the beginning, predestining whatsoever comes to pass (Acts 4:24), then God would’ve also established whether or not the remission of sins is something that He would permit without the shedding of blood. For whatever reason, He didn’t, as no Christians posit that Christ died unnecessarily.

Wife: I don’t have a clear-cut view on it, although I believe that God knows the future because He doesn’t live in a linear time like we do. Jesus gave up some of that when he came to earth, but He still was able to prophesy about that, His death, and the fall of Jerusalem, and that would be something where He would know the future, so coercion wouldn’t have to be required.

It did seem like Peter’s being placed in the situation of denying Jesus was so that Peter would know that he could not rely on his own power to stay firm. There was still free will, but he did not have the power of the Holy Spirit, so in that way you are also partially right.

It doesn’t seem like God takes away people’s free will usually, although there are some situations where it happens, which seems like they got themselves into that situation. I’m thinking about Pharoah, because the first few plagues, he chose to harden his own heart, and then at some point, it starts saying that God hardened his heart. Hebrews warns its readers not to harden their hearts like the Israelites did in the time of Moses, and it does seem like if we choose to reject God, especially after once knowing the truth, we begin to open ourselves up to more depravity and eventually perhaps, lose the ability to change our mind. I don’t actually know how that would work, and I’m not trying to make a dogma out of it

[seinetsodumm]

I guess spend some time praying and thinking about the case with Peter. You may find it helpful. Peter couldn’t’ve been free to make a choice that would’ve rendered our Lord a false prophet.

I don't see this account as a proof text for predestination, rather a display of God's omniscience.