We are having our panel discussion at 2:30pm, Pacific Time, for at least an hour. If you want to ask questions about the gospel, repentance, the sinner's prayer, the deity of Christ, eternal security, you can ask the questions here, and they will show up in the Panel Discussion, answered by a panel of David Sutton, James Bronsveld, and myself (Kent Brandenburg).
So. Ask questions in the comment section. We will answer them there at 2:30pm. It will show up on our youtube channel later. You'll hear the answer. Of course, it must be a legitimate question.
Since a proper response to the gospel is not necessarily a prayer, etc., how do you proceed if/when someone responds to the gospel with a profession of repentance and belief? In other words, in personal evangelism, what would be some things you would look for to indicate a person is repentant and believes on Christ?
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the specific names of the anti-repentance "Baptist" schools mentioned and exposed, if that has not been done already, and I would be interested to see a comment on whether someone who takes a Ryrie position is teaching a false gospel or a weak gospel. A Zane Hodges definitely appears to be cursed and unconverted, but is a Ryrie gospel very dangerous and something to separate from or is it something where its proponent is necessarily accursed?
ReplyDeleteDo you guys believe there is a difference between repentance unto salvation vs repentance for the one who is already saved? We only hear conversations, preaching or confrontations in regards to repentance when it comes to salvation but never repentance for the one who is already saved. Is there a difference one from the other? We also never seem to go into detail or explain what the repentance (change of mind) is speaking specifically speaking about. Whether thats the thoughts, attitude, realization or behaviour. I believe the term "change of mind" has also cause so much confusion and conflict because of how the term is used without going into detail. Everyone has different beliefs on if the term "change of mind" is talking about thoughts, recognition/realization attitude or actions. I believe this is one reason why so much confusion and debate is happening over repentance. I truly believe there is a difference when it comes to repentance unto salvation and repentance for the one who is already saved. I believe repentance always results in a change of life but not until one is first saved as found in 2nd Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Hence, the life change can only come AFTER a man is IN CHRIST. So, Biblically, there can be no reformation until there has first been regeneration. That is, “YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN” (John 3:5-7). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9) is what changes a man. A changed life is the FRUIT of genuine repentance, and NOT a part of the ROOT of saving-faith. A tree cannot bear fruit until the seed has first sprung to life, and the roots have formed to provide nourishment. Likewise, there can be no reformation in a man's life until there has first been regeneration. That is, being born-again by the Spirit of God must come first.
ReplyDeleteThe changed life comes AFTER a person gets saved. at the time of salvation, that is just the beginning of a whole new life in Christ (2nd Corinthians 5:17). I live right because I AM saved, not TO GET saved. I must go to God in order for a changed life to take place. Let me put it this way—a true changed life and result of the changed life is the FRUIT and resut of repentance unto salvation (a change of heart as far as our thoughts, attitude and belief go towards ourselves, sin, Christ, righteousness and the gospel) because of Christ given us the Holy Spirit once we are saved and not a part of the ROOT of saving-faith. We are changed after salvation.
We must not confuse the FRUIT of the indwelling Holy Spirit (James 2:18-21), with the ROOT of a believer's faith (Romans 4:5). Just as with a tree, the root precedes any fruit. Although the fruit and the root are inseparably related, the fruit does not bring forth the root; but rather, the root brings forth the fruit. It is just as ridiculous to expect a baby believer to live the Christian life, as it would be to expect a newborn baby to run a marathon.
We only hear conversations, confrontations, debates, or disagreements and preaching when it comes to repentance for salvation but never repentance for the one who is already saved. We also never go into detail or explain what the repentance (change of mind) is speaking specifically speaking about. Whether thats the thoughts, attitude, realization/ recognition or behaviour. There is never talks, discussions or seeious conversations going over whether its talking about the one who is saved or if its talking about salvation and whether or not repentance unto salvation vs repentance are different from one another. Everyone has different beliefs on if the term "change of mind" is talking about thoughts, attitude or actions. I believe this is one reason why so much confusion and debate is happening over repentance. I believe there is a difference one from another. Do you guys believe there is a difference?
ReplyDeleteI truly believe the term "change of mind" is the biggest issue and why repentance is such a problem and do much confidion today. the term "change of mind" which can mean several different things depending on what the situation is and the context its being used in and whether or not its talking about for salvation or the one who is already saved. There is never detail on "what change of mind" is referring to. Rathee than explain all ww hear is "repent" or "change your" rather then explaining some of the following. The term is such an issue because the "change of mind" can mean change your thinking. It can mean change your behaviour. It can mean change your attitude. It can mean come to the realization. It can mean to recognize. It can mean change your actions. But see it depends on the situation and the context its being used in and whether or not its talking to the unsaved for salvation or the who is already saved. The meanings of the term "change of mind" are different depending on the situation.
Repentance always results in a changed life. What the Bible does teach is found in 2nd Cor 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” Hence, the life change can only come AFTER a man is IN CHRIST. So, Biblically, there can be no reformation until there has first been regeneration. That is, “YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN” (John 3:5-7). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9) is what changes a man. (1 John 4:4, 1 John 5:4)
A changed life is the FRUIT of genuine repentance, and NOT a part of the ROOT of saving-faith. A tree cannot bear fruit until the seed has first sprung to life, and the roots have formed to provide nourishment. Likewise, there can be no reformation in a man's life until there has first been regeneration. That is, being born-again by the Spirit of God must come first.
The changed life comes AFTER a person gets saved. at the time of salvation, that is just the beginning of a whole new life in Christ (2nd Cor 5:17). I live right because I AM saved, not TO GET saved. I must go to God in order for a changed life to take place. Let me put it this way—a true changed life and result of the changed life is the FRUIT and resut of repentance unto salvation (a change of heart as far as our thoughts, attitude and belief go towards ourselves, sin, Christ, righteousness and the gospel) because of Christ given us the Holy Spirit once we are saved and not a part of the ROOT of saving-faith. We are changed after salvation. We aren't changed before salvation. I dont turn from or try to clean up my life in order to be saved.
We must not confuse the FRUIT of the indwelling Holy Spirit (James 2:18-21), with the ROOT of a believer's faith. Just as with a tree, the root precedes any fruit. Although the fruit and the root are inseparably related, the fruit does not bring forth the root; but rather, the root brings forth the fruit.
Ryan
Along the lines of bro. Voegtlin’s question: how do you deal with children regarding salvation and what evidence do you look for in their lives? And how do you deal with doubting and assurance regarding salvation with children?
ReplyDeleteHem smeding
Do you guys believe there is a difference when it comes to repentance unto salvation vs repentance for the believer? Please explain in detail. Are the two different from one another or involve different ways they operate?
ReplyDeleteI truly believe the term "change of mind" is the issue and why repentance is such a problem today because the term "change of mind" can mean several different things depending on what the situation is and the context its being used in and whether or not its talking about for salvation or the one who is already saved. The term is such an issue because the "change of mind" can mean change your thinking. It can mean change your behaviour. It can mean change your attitude. It can mean come to the realizatio or recognize. It can mean change your actions. But see it depends on the situation and the context its being used in and whether or not its talking to the unsaved for salvation or the who is already saved. The meanings of the term "change of mind" are different depending on the situation. "CHANGE OF MIND" has so many meanings depending on what it's referencing to. So rather then explain its your tjinking, its your behaviour, its your attitude or etc all we hear everyone say "change your mind" or "change of mind"
Ryan
Hem smeding, I hope that the panel will address your question, because I would like to hear this year's panel's answer. In 2015, a similar question was asked of the panel and the answer can be heard in this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4bUTnoqjgo&t=5712s
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteWe answered 1 and 2, but did not get the questions after that before we answered. I will answer in a blog post. We answered about 14 questions in two hours, and there was some overlap so some of these will be answered.
Sorry my questions repeated themselves! You can take the repeated ones down.
ReplyDeleteRyan
I must have missed this post in time to respond with a question. Anyway, I will post my question now, and I would appreciate it if Brother Bradenburg, Brother Ross, or any of the other men who read this blog would respond with your view when you have the time. If this has been answered previously somewhere else that I am not aware of, then I would appreciate it if someone could direct me where to find it. Here is my question:
ReplyDeleteMost professing Christians that I know of, even in IFB circles, interpret Jesus Christ’s discipleship teachings in the Gospels as being toward those who are already saved. When confronted with the fact that in a number of those passages (Mark 8:34-38) (Luke 9:57-62) and (Luke 14:25-33) where the context is clear that either a mixture of professing believers and lost people (Mark 8:34-38) (Luke 14:25-33), or just lost people (Luke 9:57-62) are being addressed by Christ with his terms of discipleship, these people will basically say that that cannot be true, because to them preaching Christ’s terms of discipleship to the lost is to contradict the Bibles teaching on justification by faith alone. I believe that this is a crucial issue, and it is really interwoven in the whole Lordship issue. It really concerns me to see so many IFB preachers who supposedly take a correct view of repentance unto salvation dance around this matter of Christ’s terms of discipleship. It is almost as if many men know the truth, but they are afraid to speak out because they know that it will probably cost them dearly in their ministries.
I am aware that Brother Bradenburg and Brother Ross both have written posts stating that all genuine believers are disciples of Christ, but I don’t recall anything specifically mentioned regarding the supposed contradiction that many cannot reconcile between Christ’s teachings on discipleship, and Paul’s teachings on justification by faith alone. Could some of you men address this? I think this would be a healthy discussion. Thanks!
Jason
I must have missed this post in time to respond with a question. Anyway, I will post my question now, and I would appreciate it if Brother Bradenburg, Brother Ross, or any of the other men who read this blog would respond with your view when you have the time. If this has been answered previously somewhere else that I am not aware of, then I would appreciate it if someone could direct me where to find it. Here is my question:
ReplyDeleteMost professing Christians that I know of, even in IFB circles, interpret Jesus Christ’s discipleship teachings in the Gospels as being toward those who are already saved. When confronted with the fact that in a number of those passages (Mark 8:34-38) (Luke 9:57-62) and (Luke 14:25-33) where the context is clear that either a mixture of professing believers and lost people (Mark 8:34-38) (Luke 14:25-33), or just lost people (Luke 9:57-62) are being addressed by Christ with his terms of discipleship, these people will basically say that that cannot be true, because to them preaching Christ’s terms of discipleship to the lost is to contradict the Bibles teaching on justification by faith alone. I believe that this is a crucial issue, and it is really interwoven in the whole Lordship issue. It really concerns me to see so many IFB preachers who supposedly take a correct view of repentance unto salvation dance around this matter of Christ’s terms of discipleship. It is almost as if many men know the truth, but they are afraid to speak out because they know that it will probably cost them dearly in their ministries.
I am aware that Brother Bradenburg and Brother Ross both have written posts stating that all genuine believers are disciples of Christ, but I don’t recall anything specifically mentioned regarding the supposed contradiction that many cannot reconcile between Christ’s teachings on discipleship, and Paul’s teachings on justification by faith alone. Could some of you men address this? I think this would be a healthy discussion. Thanks!
Jason
Dear Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question. The study here:
http://faithsaves.net/all-believers-disciples/
proves all believers are disciples. There is nothing whatever in that fact that undermines justification by faith alone. Faith results in works:
faithsaves.net/just-faith/
and that is something clearly evident in the fundamental statement, "the just shall live by faith," the theme verse of Romans and Galatians.
Thanks.
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
ReplyDeleteI have listened to all but one of the 2017 WOT Conference sermons that were available as of 11/17, including your sermon on The Sinner's Prayer, Part 1, which I listened to twice to make sure I was understanding it all. I appreciate and agree with much of what was said in The Sinner's Prayer, but I do have a question and some comments, mainly relating to whether or not prayer is a necessary element at the moment of conversion. (I fully agree that the syllogistic sinner's prayer, that merely requires repetition of words, is a damnable heresy.)
Regarding Romans 10:9-10, is it possible that the phrases "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus" and "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" are not actions that must take place in order to BE saved, but are actually the proper and expected fruit and evidence of salvation that has already taken place, much like when Christ said in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"? (Obviously baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is a proper and expected fruit of it.)
For a while now I have understood the confession phrases in Romans 10:9-10 as well as the entirety of Romans 10:13 to be closely linking salvation, which takes place in the heart, to the good works/fruit of confessing Jesus as Lord and calling upon Him. To me, that interpretation seems to fit well in the context of Romans 10, as well as the whole of Scripture, which repeatedly emphasizes repentance/faith as being the necessary elements of salvation. Romans 10:8 says, "the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith..." which to me seems to indicate that it really is a matter of having true faith in the heart, not necessarily praying or confessing, though these will undoubtedly come. Verse 11 seems like an "evidence of salvation" statement, emphasizing that those who truly believe will not be ashamed to confess Christ. The first phrase of Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed" seems to indicate that a person will not truly call on the Lord until he has first believed, which quite possibly could mean belief for salvation.
This interpretation seems to fit well with the parable of the prodigal son and his unconverted brother. It would seem that the prodigal truly repented and believed when he "came to himself" and decided he would go back to his father, not when he actually spoke to his father. I think the father's reaction in verse 20, where it says, "But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him" indicates that the prodigal was already saved, since the father is a picture of God, and He would not have this reaction to a lost soul that is still in rebellion against Him.
Regarding the prayer of the publican, "God be merciful to me a sinner," I'm not convinced it proves that prayer is necessary in order to BE saved, since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." He clearly already had the right heart condition of repentance/faith, and so many passages mention this as the requirement for salvation without any reference to prayer or confessing Christ verbally.
I fully agree that salvation is described in various ways, such as coming, looking, tasting, drinking, etc., but it seems to me that these are metaphors or pictures to help us understand salvation, whereas the way we actually come to Jesus, look to Jesus, etc. is specifically through repentance and faith.
This is the way I have been thinking about salvation for several years now, but I'm open to correction if I am wrong.
Brother Ross,
ReplyDeleteI have read your study on discipleship and it is very good. I believe that it is irrefutable with all of the scripture you give to support your statements.
I agree with you that there is not a contradiction between Christ’s terms of discipleship and the doctrine of justification by faith alone, but again, there are many that have a problem reconciling the two.
I have read a good deal of church history, particularly pertaining to the Anabaptists, and they emphasized the teaching of Christ on discipleship far more than they did on Paul’s teaching of justification by faith alone. Again, no contradiction between the two in my estimation, but it is interesting that the Reformers emphasized Paul’s teaching on forensic justification to such an extent, that they greatly neglected Christ’s terms of discipleship. Martin Luther even went as far to call the book of James a “straw man epistle” because of its emphasis on genuine faith always resulting in works. So when you compare the Anabaptists with the Reformers, and what they both emphasized in their preaching and teaching, it is obvious that the Anabaptists had a greater impact reaching people for Christ, and impacting the culture in such a way, that they were hated for their stand for Christ and his word.
My concern, is that I see much of the IFB movement as closer to the position of the Reformers, than our true ancestors, the Anabaptists. Most IFB churches are so focused of justification by faith alone (to an unbiblical extreme I believe I believe), that they are pathetically weak in their teaching on discipleship, and when they do teach it, it is always addressed to believers, and never to the lost as Christ did. The end result, is that many IFB churches have the appearance of godliness, like the Reformers, but not the true possession of godliness, like the Anabaptists did. Even the Reformers, as much as they hated and persecuted the Anabaptists, had to admit that they were the godliest people they had ever witnessed. Did the differences in their theology have anything to do with that? I say yes without a doubt.
I would be interested to know your thoughts Brother Ross, or anyone else reading this, regarding whether we should mention Christ’s terms of discipleship in our evangelization of the lost. I have seen people mention repentance in a proper way, but I am talking about specifically getting into the matter of discipleship as Christ did in his evangelizing. Some might say that only Christ had the right and authority to do that, but I would be interested to read your thoughts on this, or others if they care to respond. Thanks!
Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteDiscipleship is a daily thing. "Take up your cross daily." That simply cannot be a salvation requirement. Perhaps you could say that at salvation every believer becomes an embryonic disciple, but they have to grow in their discipleship/commitment. If by definition you refer to a disciple as a believer then the practical applications and requirements for being a disciple are taken away. You change the very germ of salvation if you apply the discipleship requirements to the unregenerate.
Justin
Dear Jason,
ReplyDeleteGood gospel tracts, such as the one that is most often used in Bethel Baptist Church (written by Pastor Brandenburg), or the one that I pass out the most often which is online here:
http://faithsaves.net/salvation
employ passages like Mark 8:36-38 and call on the lost take up the cross just like the Lord Jesus Himself did.
I would be cautious drawing conclusions that the Anabaptists did not emphasize justification by faith as much based on what we have available in history. Remember that confessional documents and other statements are often generated in the light of controversy, and when the Anabaptists were contending for a regenerate church membership and calling on people to identify with Christ in believers baptism went to do this might involve their death it is reasonable that much of what we have preserved talks a great deal about discipleship. Did the Anabaptists criticize the Reformers for teaching justification by faith alone or complain that this was an imbalanced emphasis? Furthermore, it is important to remember that not all Anabaptists were teaching what is scriptural then, any more than all Baptists today are teaching what is scriptural. Justification by faith alone is a key doctrine which deserves a great emphasis.
The Reformers had serious problems, but emphasizing justification by faith was not one of them. Teaching things like baptismal regeneration which destroyed or very seriously undermined justification by faith was a very big problem. Allowing people who did not have true faith to be church members or even ministers in a State "church" was a very big problem. Emphasizing what the Bible teaches through the apostle Paul and in all other parts of Scripture that justification is by repentant faith alone is not something that is a problem or an imbalance, but something that is very very good.
The vast majority of people to whom we preach the gospel door-to-door or in other ways do not understand justification by faith alone and therefore need to have it carefully explained to them. They should also have repentance and the need to become Christ's follower as they receive him as both Lord and Savior explained.
Thanks.
Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to read all the comments, cull through them for questions we did not answer in the panel discussion parts 2 and 3, and then either answer them or direct you to an answer, if Thomas Ross hasn't already done so. That will require a separate post at some point. By the way, you are welcome to answer someone's question here, but that doesn't mean it is right or what we would answer. I noticed that someone thought he should start answering questions, and I published it, but even silence at this point doesn't mean that I think that it was a good answer. I don't want people believing an error, however.
ReplyDeleteDear Pastor Brandenburg,
ReplyDeleteI listened to The Sinner's Prayer Part 2 a couple of times, and it cleared things up for me quite a bit. Based on what you said about the Greek, it makes sense that Romans 10:9-10 must be speaking about immediate salvation. When you said that the confession doesn't necessarily have to be verbal at the moment of salvation, that also made more sense to me. If I am misrepresenting what you said, please correct it. I should have waited until I had a chance to hear heart to hear Part 2 before commenting.
Brother Ross,
ReplyDelete{Part 1}
I have read your Gospel tract. It is very thorough and clear, especially relating to repentance, which is quite rare in Gospel tracts today. I have never seen anyone include (Mark 8:34, 35) in a Gospel tract, so I was encouraged to see that.
The way that I see discipleship as taught and preached by the Lord Jesus Christ, is that there is an initial call to discipleship that is part of the call to salvation, and the two cannot be separated from each other as many attempt to do. I believe that passages such as (Mark 8:34-37) (Luke 9:57-62) (Luke 14:25-33) and others make this very clear. But then there is also progressive discipleship (sanctification) which is daily (I Corinthians 15:31), that all truly regenerate people continue in (John 8:31). The problem lies in the fact that most IFB preachers don’t want to accept Christ’s teaching of a call to discipleship as being involved and connected with conversion. When Independent Baptists hear words like “commit,” or “surrender” to Christ and his terms of discipleship, they automatically think “works salvation.” Well then, go ahead and lay that charge at the feet of Jesus himself if you dare, because this is what he taught and called for at the outset from the lost, and then daily from the saved. Just to be clear, when Christ told the multitudes in (Luke 14:25-33) (who most likely were a mixture of truly regenerate people, professing disciples who were lost, and non-professing lost people) conditions such as hating, or loving less family relations v.26; or forsaking all that you have v.33; I don’t believe that he was telling the lost that they had to do those things in order to be saved, or to become his disciple. I believe that he was letting the multitudes know very clearly that this is what they could and should expect from a life of being his obedient disciple. So it was almost as if Christ was saying to them, ‘look, this is what will be expected from you if you are truly converted, and become my obedient disciple. If you don’t want any part of this life, or if you are not willing to accept these terms, then it is best that you leave now.’ Not exactly purpose driven methodology by Jesus, but nevertheless, that is what he essentially preached. He even told the people that were considering believing on him and following him to count the cost of doing so (Luke 14:28-32).
In (Mark 8:34-37) he told “the people” and “his disciples” (an obvious distinction) that they could not even enter into salvation and a life of discipleship apart from a voluntary act of self-denial and taking up of the cross (v.34). He then follows that in (Mark 8:35) by saying an unwillingness to do that will result in one losing their life (which essentially means that they will perish in their sins and go to hell.)
Jason
{Part 2}
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my previous reply, that is what the Anabaptists believed Christ was preaching about discipleship, and for that reason, they preached it as well. I was not saying that the Anabaptists did not emphasize justification by faith, but rather that they did believe that many were perverting that Biblical doctrine (namely the Reformers), and making salvation one-sided in a sense. To the Anabaptists, justification by faith that does not result in self-denial; the carrying of one’s cross daily; or ongoing discipleship (sanctification), is not the true Biblical teaching of justification by faith. This is essentially where they parted from the Reformers. Whatever the Reformers taught on justification by faith was negated by their teaching on baptismal regeneration. So contrary to popular belief, rather than help people get a clearer understanding of justification by faith, the Reformers confused, and ultimately hurt more people than they helped. You asked the question Brother Ross, “Did the Anabaptists criticize the Reformers for teaching justification by faith alone or complain that this was an imbalanced emphasis? Yes, they most certainly believed that the Reformers placed an imbalanced emphasis on justification by faith. Histories on the Anabaptists make this very clear. Here are some examples:
*”For the Anabaptists, the new life in Christ through the Spirit rather than justification by faith is the center of the New Testament faith and therefore of the church. The life of the redeemed, the presence of the Holy Spirit in believers, is foremost. Not the Word of God found in the Bible, but the experience of Christ’s presence is the foundation of the church. The Spirit of Christ spread abroad in the human heart is more important than any endeavor to understand the contents of God’s disclosure, whether found in the Bible or expressed in theological statements” (John Dillenberger and Claude Welch, Protestant Christianity, p.63).
*”They and their interpreters have contended that the main line of the theology of the Reformers presented a one-sided interpretation of the doctrine of justification by faith, with too little emphasis upon that discipleship which produces works that evidence genuine justification” (George P. Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, p.279).
*”The Reformers showed more interest in forensic justification than the theology of discipleship. The difference in emphasis produced two differing types of character, even as it does today. Many who embraced the Reformation showed no change in their lives. This was not true of the Anabaptists who were known for their deep consecration and holy living (Chester E. Tulga, Why Baptists are not Protestants, pgs. 25-26).
Jason
{Part 3}
ReplyDeleteHere are some statements directly from the mouths of the Anabaptists themselves on this matter:
*The Anabaptist martyr named Leonhard Schiemer described the Reformers distorted teaching on justification by faith by saying it leads to: “forgiveness of sins without true repentance, grace and freedom without proper conversion, and salvation and eternal life promised to them without renewing their lives to God” (Michael D. Wilkinson, The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists, p.60).
*The following is a portion of a letter written by an Anabaptist martyr named Hans Schlaffer to God the night before he was beheaded. It clearly shows how the Anabaptists viewed faith in Christ which leads to salvation. He wrote: “Oh God, illuminated by your kindness, we understand the word faith in the context of deeds. He who has faith in Jesus gives himself to you and to your will. He denies himself, takes up his cross, and follows Jesus, his teacher, his Lord and his head…even into death. He says with Paul, ‘I live, but not I, It is Christ who lives in me,’ and ‘everyone who has not the Spirit of Christ is none of his.’ Oh Father in heaven, whoever lives in Christ your Son and suffers and dies with him will rise with him in glory to be in his kingdom forever. This is how we have understood the holy Gospel. This is how we understand Christ and his teachings, and this is how we now understand the word faith which we never understood like this before” (Peter Hoover, The Secret of the Strength “What would the Anabaptists tell this generation?” p.38).
*The Anabaptists often used the word “detachment” when speaking of discipleship. To them “detachment” was synonymous with Christ’s teachings on discipleship. The Anabaptist Hans Haffner wrote about this detachment from his dungeon in a tract called “About the true soldier of Jesus Christ.” He wrote: “Let us now hear what true detachment is: It is to let go of all things for God’s sake…and to turn to God so that he may lead us. Jesus Christ called it hatred: ‘He who does not hate his father and mother and renounce everything he has is not worthy of me.’ True detachment (discipleship) is to put to death the flesh and to be born another time. The whole world wants to have Christ, but they pass him by. They do not find him because they want to have him only as a gift, only as a giver of grace and a mediator which he certainly is, but they do not want to have him in a suffering way. The same Christ who says, ‘All who are heavy laden, come to me and I will refresh you,’ also says, ‘Whosoever will not forsake father and mother cannot be my disciple.’ Whoever loves truth must accept the one as well as the other. Whoever wants to have Christ must have him also in the way of suffering. It is foolish to say: ‘We believe that Christ has redeemed us, but we do not want to live like he lived.’ True detachment (discipleship) involves two things: enduring persecution and overcoming ourselves. When they hit one cheek we are to turn to them the other….In the second place we must be weaned from the ways of our human nature as a child must be weaned from his mother’s breast. We must be willing to forsake wife and children, father and mother, lands and property, our lives and even what God has given to us…for Christ” (Peter Hoover, The Secret of the Strength, “What would the Anabaptists tell this generation? P.40).
Jason
{Part 4}
ReplyDelete*Many more could be quoted, but the following message from the Anabaptist martyr named Michael Schneider aptly describes the predominant Anabaptist thought regarding true salvation and discipleship. He wrote this message from the castle dungeon before he died under torture at Passau in Bavaria. I wonder how many IFB preachers would have the courage to preach such a message today. He wrote: “Listen to me, all peoples of the earth. Listen to me, young and old, great and small. If you want to be saved, you need to leave sin, follow Christ the Lord, and live according to his will. Christ Jesus came to the earth to teach men the right way to go, to teach them to turn from sin and follow him. He said: ‘I am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the father except through me.’ He who longs for one-ness with Jesus and who wants to take part in his kingdom, needs to do what Jesus did while he was on the earth. He who wants to reign with Jesus must first be willing to suffer for his name. The man who dies with Jesus in this life will enter with him into the Father’s kingdom, in eternal joy. But the man who does not follow him is not redeemed by his blood and his sins will never be forgiven. Those whose sins have been forgiven should live no longer in sin. This is what Jesus Christ, our Lord, teaches us. Those who fall back into sin break their covenant with God. Even greater pain and suffering will be theirs -- and their loss will be forever. Not all who say “Lord, Lord” will enter into the kingdom. Only those who keep his covenant will be accepted by him. He who confesses Christ before the world and who stands for the truth to the end will be saved. Help us to that, God, our Lord, that we may stay with Jesus – that we may always walk according to his teachings, that we may commit no more sins, and that we may be an honour to his name, now and forever…into eternity! Amen”
(Peter Hoover, The Secret of the Strength, “What would the Anabaptists tell this generation?” p.34).
*You are right Brother Ross that not all of those called Anabaptists were preaching the truth, just like all IFB’s today are not, but in the main, the Anabaptists, I believe, came closer to the Biblical teaching on salvation than any other Christian group, whether that be the Reformers, the Puritans, or the majority of IFB’s of today.
Jason
Dear Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words on my gospel tract. Bro Brandenburg's gospel tract does the same thing; I am not sure if it is online or not. I would be very surprised if Bro Brandenburg would not allow you to use his in your church; you can definitely use mine if you like.
Thanks also for taking the time to post the quotes from various people on Anabaptist beliefs.
I would keep in mind that historians who say that the Anabaptists deemphasized justification by faith also often the sort of people that claim that the people at Munster were Anabaptists (despite their ringleader taking the Catholic sacrament right before they executed him).
Furthermore, the Mennonites came to the position that pouring water on believers is "baptism" and that one can lose salvation, both of which are dangerous false doctrines. It is possible that some who are called "Anabaptists" claimed that justification by faith was overemphasized, especially if they adopted heresies like denying eternal security, but that does not mean that all Anabaptists took this position.
Some of the people you quoted are claiming the Anabaptists were proto-Quakers, e. g.: " Not the Word of God found in the Bible, but the experience of Christ’s presence is the foundation of the church."
Do you really think that the Anabaptists generally claimed an experience was more important than the Word of God found in the Bible?
I also would point out that a Lordship view of salvation was the position of Calvin, Zwingli, the Puritans, etc.; they were not modern anti-Lordship people. While the State-"church" concept, infant baptism, etc. were very serious problems with Reformation theology, there is no classic Reformed (or Arminian, for that matter) Protestant confession of faith that takes, say, the view of the gospel advocated by Zane Hodges.
Thanks again.