Do Reformed Anabaptists exist?

[Esdras]

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.

[JohnH]

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.

Anabaptists don't believe in some kind of mechanistic universe where God pre-decides every single thing, and humans are just some kind of automatons playing out a part on a movie screen. We would, generally, subscribe more to the view that God allows people to make free decisions including the decision whether to follow Jesus or not.

This is a fundamental difference between Anabaptism and between Reformed thinking. It is interesting to note that Islam also subscribes to the same kind of fatalism where essentially everything is already pre-decided.

In the scripture, I see that sometimes God changes his mind. It would seem when God created man in his image, that included creating man with the ability to change his mind - a divine attribute.

[Esdras]

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.

Anabaptists don't believe in some kind of mechanistic universe where God pre-decides every single thing, and humans are just some kind of automatons playing out a part on a movie screen. We would, generally, subscribe more to the view that God allows people to make free decisions including the decision whether to follow Jesus or not.

This is a fundamental difference between Anabaptism and between Reformed thinking. It is interesting to note that Islam also subscribes to the same kind of fatalism where essentially everything is already pre-decided.

In the scripture, I see that sometimes God changes his mind. It would seem when God created man in his image, that included creating man with the ability to change his mind - a divine attribute.

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 believe the Triune God is ever surprised or learns anything new. I’m not sure Anabaptists believe God is ever surprised or learns anything new either. So while people perhaps have this free will that you’re thinking about, God still ultimately chose which universe to actualize in which people would (or wouldn’t) choose Him.

[barnhart]

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.

I believe in substitutionary atonement as it is presented in the scripture, as one illustration among others also found there. I'm more reluctant with the penal part of PSA since it seems clear that God is gracious and can forgive sin.

Then why did He die? Or stipulate that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin? Forgiveness didn’t have to be a bloody business. God could’ve chosen to abide by a different set of rules.
He didn’t have to promise to return and have blood up to the horse’s bridle and tread the winepress in His wrath (it’s where we get the English “orgy” from, reflecting the unbridled nature of the outpouring of his fierce wrath upon the wicked with the righteous as judges, witnesses, and if Luke 19:27 is to be believed, even participants) either, but He did.

I don't know the mind of God and that is why I get nervous saying the atonement has to be this way or that way. You are asking some good questions about the relationship between the mode of atonement and the final judgement. It looks like a mistake to me to assume they are parallel.

[Esdras]

I believe in substitutionary atonement as it is presented in the scripture, as one illustration among others also found there. I'm more reluctant with the penal part of PSA since it seems clear that God is gracious and can forgive sin.

Then why did He die? Or stipulate that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin? Forgiveness didn’t have to be a bloody business. God could’ve chosen to abide by a different set of rules.
He didn’t have to promise to return and have blood up to the horse’s bridle and tread the winepress in His wrath (it’s where we get the English “orgy” from, reflecting the unbridled nature of the outpouring of his fierce wrath upon the wicked with the righteous as judges, witnesses, and if Luke 19:27 is to be believed, even participants) either, but He did.

I don't know the mind of God and that is why I get nervous saying the atonement has to be this way or that way. You are asking some good questions about the relationship between the mode of atonement and the final judgement. It looks like a mistake to me to assume they are parallel.

It very well may be, but I think what unites all orthodox Christians, Anabaptists, Protestants and Catholics alike, is that we agree on at least sixty six books of the Bible. So we are all reading from the same books in that Bible that talk about God being akin to a man of war and a covering for sin being bloody business, even from the time God fashioned skins for our first parents.

My unifying thought here is that He presumably could’ve chosen to make any number of universes, but He made this one: a universe where the life is in the blood, the wages of sin is death, and that an exchange must take place in the dispensation of justice (or, if we wanna get fancy, the display of His perfections).

[JohnH]

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 hope this doesn't come across as insulting, but I have no plans to spend time praying and thinking about how to become more Reformed.

Peter was created to be able to make free will choices. He was not created as a mindless being helpless but to act on a pre-determined script.

The fact God is omniscient doesn't change the fact God decided to make people with free wills. Indeed, as an omnipotent God, God can create people with free wills whose choices can alter the course of history, even.

I don’t believe the Triune God is ever surprised or learns anything new. I’m not sure Anabaptists believe God is ever surprised or learns anything new either. So while people perhaps have this free will that you’re thinking about, God still ultimately chose which universe to actualize in which people would (or wouldn’t) choose Him.

Anabaptists generally don't want to put limitations on God or construct a systematic theology him. So when the Bible says that God "repented that he made man" concerning the flood, we simple take the Bible at its face value. ("Repent" means to change one's mind; the Hebrew word used carries a connotation of regret for a past decision.)

It very well may be, but I think what unites all orthodox Christians, Anabaptists, Protestants and Catholics alike, is that we agree on at least sixty six books of the Bible.

That isn't really what unites us - to start with, the majority of Anabaptists and all Catholics and Orthodox affirm more than 66 books (the apocryphal books). In fact, taking a pair of scissors to the Bible is another Reformed thing that the majority of Anabaptists reject.

So we are all reading from the same books in that Bible that talk about God being akin to a man of war and a covering for sin being bloody business, even from the time God fashioned skins for our first parents.

My unifying thought here is that He presumably could’ve chosen to make any number of universes, but He made this one: a universe where the life is in the blood, the wages of sin is death, and that an exchange must take place in the dispensation of justice (or, if we wanna get fancy, the display of His perfections).

Anabaptists don't hold to systematic ideas like "an exchange must take place in the dispensation of justice", and generally they don't try to "put God in a box". The Anabaptist view of Jesus would be that he came as a servant and was willing to lay his life down, so that we could learn to do the same thing, and understand God's true nature. We don't believe that God's true nature is that he wants to punish and kill people out of some desire for vengeance.

[ohio jones]

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.

Rather than continue the Atonement bunny trail in this thread, I'd encourage people to review the thread on Theories of Atonement and add to that.

One teaser from that thread:

I've been studying through the Old Testament for quite some time now, and I'm up into the Prophet Isaiah. Maybe it was not in my daily reading, but maybe in the SS text recently, but I read about one of the kings who, in repenting and wearing sackcloth, etc., received a message from the Lord that He had, in response to this act of repentance, "turned away His wrath". I thought of this discussion, and coming here now, I see this statement that Christ has "stilled" the Father's wrath. That doesn't have to mean that the Christ 'bore' the wrath of God, but maybe it fits with the response of God to repentance, that He in turn "turns away His wrath". Perhaps that is a good way to describe what Jesus did in his death and resurrection - The Father turned away His wrath in response. That still leaves the question of 'How?' largely unanswered, so perhaps most people will remain unsatisfied, but I find it to be the sort of statement that lets the mystery remain, while making reference to the fact that God's wrath has been 'satisfied' in some way so that He withholds judgement of the guilty. In that way it is a statement that, as a 'Biblicist', I can accept.

[Esdras]

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 hope this doesn't come across as insulting, but I have no plans to spend time praying and thinking about how to become more Reformed.

Peter was created to be able to make free will choices. He was not created as a mindless being helpless but to act on a pre-determined script.

The fact God is omniscient doesn't change the fact God decided to make people with free wills. Indeed, as an omnipotent God, God can create people with free wills whose choices can alter the course of history, even.

I don’t believe the Triune God is ever surprised or learns anything new. I’m not sure Anabaptists believe God is ever surprised or learns anything new either. So while people perhaps have this free will that you’re thinking about, God still ultimately chose which universe to actualize in which people would (or wouldn’t) choose Him.

Anabaptists generally don't want to put limitations on God or construct a systematic theology him. So when the Bible says that God "repented that he made man" concerning the flood, we simple take the Bible at its face value. ("Repent" means to change one's mind; the Hebrew word used carries a connotation of regret for a past decision.)

It’s not insulting in the slightest, friend. I wouldn’t want you to pray about being more reformed, but rather to pray about what God says in His Word concerning Himself and Creation. Nothing more, nothing less. We’re all called to be Bereans and compare spiritual things with spiritual. That gets to be hard work when we think about a God that says He doesn’t lie or change, especially in light of verses you’ve brought up. It gets to be harder work still if a choice made by Peter or Judas could turn our Lord into a liar.

Good things to think about.

[JohnH]

It’s not insulting in the slightest, friend. I wouldn’t want you to pray about being more reformed, but rather to pray about what God says in His Word concerning Himself and Creation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I simply affirm what my church teaches when it comes to doctrine and do not try to construct a personal, individualistic systematic theology, and i don't think God shows us sound doctrine via personal special revelation.

When I used to think that was how we should approach God and discern what to believe, I held to more charismatic-Pentecostal types of beliefs. Not Reformed. I happen to think those beliefs are wrong now.

We’re all called to be Bereans and compare spiritual things with spiritual. That gets to be hard work when we think about a God that says He doesn’t lie or change, especially in light of verses you’ve brought up. It gets to be harder work still if a choice made by Peter or Judas could turn our Lord into a liar.

It isn't "hard work". I just believe what the Bible says, and that God is bigger and greater than something I can comprehend. God can certainly change his mind - he can do so whenever he wants to.

I don't need to worry about a "what if" that "Peter or Judas could turn our Lord into a liar". They could not do so, because nobody could turn God into a liar. God can create people with free wills, yet he can also be omniscient at the same time.

[Esdras]

It’s not insulting in the slightest, friend. I wouldn’t want you to pray about being more reformed, but rather to pray about what God says in His Word concerning Himself and Creation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I simply affirm what my church teaches when it comes to doctrine and do not try to construct a personal, individualistic systematic theology, and i don't think God shows us sound doctrine via personal special revelation.

When I used to think that was how we should approach God and discern what to believe, I held to more charismatic-Pentecostal types of beliefs. Not Reformed. I happen to think those beliefs are wrong now.

We’re all called to be Bereans and compare spiritual things with spiritual. That gets to be hard work when we think about a God that says He doesn’t lie or change, especially in light of verses you’ve brought up. It gets to be harder work still if a choice made by Peter or Judas could turn our Lord into a liar.

It isn't "hard work". I just believe what the Bible says, and that God is bigger and greater than something I can comprehend. God can certainly change his mind - he can do so whenever he wants to.

I don't need to worry about a "what if" that "Peter or Judas could turn our Lord into a liar". They could not do so, because nobody could turn God into a liar. God can create people with free wills, yet he can also be omniscient at the same time.

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

Grace and peace, and thank you again for the dialogue.