I grew up in a “liberal” wing of MCUSA (though I don’t really like the terms liberal and conservative) and that’s still generally how I identify. Because of the visible and social differences between mainstream an conservative Mennonites, I always assumed we didn’t really have much in common, other than a shared history. I assumed I was too worldly and hedonistic for them, and they were too insular and legalistic for me. So I never bothered to form any close relationship with conservative groups. But when I found myself agreeing and being inspired by much what Chester was saying, particularly on the Anabaptist theological distinctives, I realized that I DO share a lot with conservative Mennonite communities. I TOO was taught the basic framework you described on faith, works, salvation, community, and so on. Like you, I am ALSO wrestling with what a sustainable faith tradition looks like in the throws of the 21st century. I loved when you said that Anabaptism is both “powerful and fragile.” It’s so hard to keep a living faith going, because, necessarily, each generation has to do the hard work of discerning what a faithful walk looks like in their context. What’s more, with the proliferation of technology and cultural exposure, these varied contexts are also proliferating, creating opportunities and also great challenges. If we’d go back to the historic theological position (and practice) that you described, we could be much more helpful to each other as we discern what’s next, hopefully learning to be more patient with each other as we work in an increasingly diffuse reality. I’ll pray for you if you pray for me.
Thank you so much for this. I have really benefitted from your ministry over the last few years. Most of this session I would have agreed with and taught as an Evangelical pastor. We too believed "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved." Sanctification is a fruit of being justified by faith and the work of grace in my life ultimately in the hope of glorification. I have understood the differences in Evangelicalism and Anabaptism as: 1. Christ was the most supreme revelation of God, He revealed God most completely and sufficiently. 2. A Christ-centered hermeneutic (because Christ was the most supreme revelation of God.) Thus elevating the life and teachings of Christ in light of the rest of the Scriptures. 3. A Real and Realizing Kingdom manifesting itself in reality(instead of an ethereal kingdom that is mysterious.) Thus believing spiritual and physical allegiances do indeed conflict (instead of segregating them) 4. New Covenant Priority (since Christ's Covenant is supreme) instead of trying to join the old and new together. 5. Understanding sound doctrine and discipleship as a pattern of life instead of just a theological endeavor, because the highest revelation of God came as a person who taught and lived what I should now teach and live. Thus, articulating particular theological precepts is insufficient, instead living a particular life (after Christ in sound teaching) is the true manifestation of God's grace in my life. 6. Glorying in Jesus’ life and teachings alongside honoring His death and Resurrection instead of separating his atoning work on the cross from the life he called his disciples to live. 7. Hold obedience as (actual/realized) instead of just conceptual or principled. Thank you!
This type of talk is why I can 'Plant my Flag' and consider myself an Anabaptist. I do wish that more of the local communities did not lean on the leg of works so much though, to the point of forgetting Grace. It makes it difficult for new people to join into pre-existing communities by creating regulations that may not be entirely necessary. We definitely need both legs.
@@Benjamin-jo4rf End of the day. I don't consider Anabaptist a denomination, I don't think the founders did either. I do think they kept the spirit of the early church, which is why I can associate. They also don't have a wicked history, and those Mennonites who sided with Hitler for example didn't exactly stick to the foundational principals taught as a whole. To show concession, I can see that there has been a sort of Apostacia. Falling away, just like what happened with the Early Church in the 3-400s. The cycle repeats, until it culminates. 'Reformation' is about to happen again. Who would you be in history?
@@Benjamin-jo4rf I read it, and agree. However it still does not take away from my point of view. Aligning with Anabaptist's not being a denomination, and another comment prior that I wish many of their Churches did not rely so much on the leg of works so as to exclude other parts of the body. More or less. The principals remain, and I doubt people like Menno Simons even wanted to have an institution taking his name, over that of Jesus. Anabaptist as a name was a title ascribed to a group of people, like Christians in Antioch. To me, there is a key difference between the two. From your excerpt, "I want to say one more thing, that earlier quote that I read from Cyprian, he says, whatsoever is appointed by human madness so that the divine disposition is violated, is adulterous, is impious, is sacrilegious, depart far from the contagion of men of this kind, flee from their words and avoid them as a cancer and a plague. As the Lord warns you and says, they are blind leaders of the blind, but if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch. As much as I appreciate that quote, I'd like to add something to it. If we only flee from these things, we will very well likely end up in straights as bad as we are, if there's nothing to flee to. And I'm sure he meant this and knew this too. And Lord willing, sometime in the future, I would like to preach a message that maybe links on to this, on what it means to flee from these things and into the kingdom and what the difference is between His kingdom and just another church to be a part of. The Lord add His blessings."
@@ezrajeremiah8631 I would beg to differ with you on the Anabaptist not having a wicked history. Corey and Jennifer Anderson have written some interesting scholarly writings on some of the issues with Anabaptist folks. I would say that there is a lot more issues with the Anabaptist denomination than meets the naked eye. It's really just a cult and a white supremacist one at that. The Israelites worshipped the golden serpent and I believe that the Anabaptists are doing the same thing.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 The world of Anabaptists is something i am very familiar with. Since i have become and adult I have spent much time studying their history. they like to talk about how special and "powerful" (reagan shrocks and chester weavers words from this interview) they are but in reality they are not much different at all than the catholic, lutherans, and other sects of "Christianity" . They have done more harm than good in the past 500 years. they had a nice beginning but they certainly didnt start anything new. they started out good and almost instantl fell into the sins they still deal with today.
For me salvation is simple. It's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that leads to a person bending their knee to God's Will and living a life of obedience to Scripture. Which means that when I see people running around claiming to be saved, but are living in wilful disobedience to Scripture, I can only quote John, 1John 1:6 and 2John 2:9. They lie and have neither the Father nor the Son.
Amen. And by the way, there are children of God in all kinds of churches, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist....they live for Jesus as living sacrifices and often suffer in the very churches who are supposed to keep watch over their souls, all for the glory of God.
@@christianmama2441 I think there are many more true Christians sitting at home not attending church, than what there are actual true Christians attending some of those church denominations you list, and many more fallen church denominations that you did not list. It's very difficult for one filled with the Holy Spirit to go week after week to a church that is making a mockery of God and the Bible. For it has become a synagogue of satan. A vile blasphemous cesspit that is a vexation to the true Christian. Eventually the Holy Spirit within is going to say, enough is enough, this far and no farther. And they stop going to church. Unfortunately, most do not seek out a more Bible obedient Church, that is firm in the word of God, because most don't know what it is they need to look for in a Church, all they know, church in general is not the place they want to be.
@@Vettel2011 when it comes to being tempted to doing something wrong, you just got to say to yourself something like, this will upset God, or God will not be happy if I do this, or this is just not worth giving up heaven for. To be honest, I find having a list of rules, an ordnung, makes my life much simpler, I don't have to constantly fight with myself or my desires over whether something is permissible or not, it is already decided. I suspect many Christians without an ordnung spend countless hours fighting with themselves about whether they should or shouldn't do something, and then countless hours feeling guilty for doing it, when they realize that their instinct not to do it was the correct choice, which they ignored. I also find that the ordnung holds me in the faith on the days I'm just not feeling it. It prevents me from making bad decisions which could have negative consequences. Obviously being surrounded by brothers who will correct you if you step off the narrow path, is very important. I think it must be very hard to be a Christian in a modern church, which looks more like a free for all social club than a Church, and everyone offended if you dare try and correct their waywardness.
Unfortunantly, we don't have a transcript of this video. You are welcome to download an mp3 file of the conversation from our webiste and share that with your friends. Also, if your friends have Telegram or CloudVeil, they can join our Telegram group which has copies of every episode we publish.
You can click on Show Transcript in the video description. The text will pop up in the upper right corner of your screen, or if you're on a phone, it will show on your full screen. You could copy/paste that text and send or print it out.
Has anyone interacted with the work "Salvation by allegiance alone"? And if so how does this compare with that? I have heard mixed things about that book and haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but it seems that protestant is trying to say something like what is being said here, again I say that having not read the work yet. I'd be interested if anyone has read that, or if Chester has interacted with that.
Hi Jordan. I'm not sure if Chester has interacted with "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" or not. If you'd like to dialog with him about it, feel free to email us, and I can get you into contact with him.
I have enjoyed that book by Matthew Bates. I have not fully digested it and won't venture and opinion on all of his claims. Some things he says that I think are really important and helpful are that the gospel has a climax in the current kingship of Jesus and that "faith" has a lot to do with allegiance to the King. Bates argues that in many passages "allegiance" is a far better translation of than is the word "faith". I agree with Bates that true biblical faith includes (at least) belief about Jesus, public confession that Jesus is Lord, and bodily enacted loyalty.
What about the case of carnal Christian’s like they talk about in the New Testament? If all have come short of the glory of God where’s the line we need to be at to be worthy of heaven?
Jesus is the line. First is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, next is self discipline, the control of our carnal desires of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, and to follow the narrow path that is pleasing to God. The question is not whether God loves us, a given, but whether we love God enough to be obedient and say, not my will but Thy will be done. As Jesus said, if you love Me, why do you not do what I tell you? And, the people praise Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.
I would look at Revelation 2 for this. Salvation being a Past, Present, and Future thing.. Only two of the Churches are told to basically continue doing what they are doing, the others are given a warning to straighten up. They were Saved, but were doing things that weren't in line with the Gospel of the Kingdom. If they continued in Sin, and did not participate in the work God had started.. I would assume they would not get their ultimate reward. This also brings to mind the Parable of the Sower, and the various soils and circumstances that we and the seed of faith in us go through. Looking at a line.. Well, that is an inward thing. Not an outward thing. God will judge the hearts of Men, and where they are actually at with Him inwardly. Regardless of what they profess outwardly.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 I would argue that what is in a man's heart will be revealed on the outside. Sure one may fake the outside and present a false image of what is going on in one's heart, but eventually time will reveal all truths, for that what is hidden will be revealed. Thus a heart for God will reveal godliness on the outside, and a heart for the world will reveal worldliness on the outside. By their fruits you shall know them.
@@broz1488 Yes, but those fruits are the culmination of the internal state. The outward expression. I agree with you, but was trying to bring in some nuance that the fruits are not always there to be seen, but ultimately will be revealed. These Churches being rebuked I am sure had those who ultimately repented, and sought the truth.. Though their fruits in the moment would not have shown it by our standards. This is where I give room to God, to give grace.. And for us, we will be judged as we have judged others. We balance on a two edged sword, and I can't claim to be completely sanctified either. So I try to take a humble approach. I would be open to talking with you about this sometime. I am not claiming to be the arbiter of truth, to have the epignosis-
@@ezrajeremiah8631 if you wish, you can explain to me what you understand by Grace, I'm not sure if I understand that fully. I may be conflating grace and mercy as the same thing. Sanctification I feel can only be fully achieved in death. Until then our sanctification rests largely in the shed blood of Jesus.
Thanks Jonathan, if you would care to unpack the mischaracterization and give a bit of your own characterization that could be helpful to us and other viewers.
Wow. I've only viewed the part about Chester's view of salvation, and I have to disagree with him here regarding his take on it. Wasn't it the apostle Paul that told the Philippian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...". There are more verses that in effect state the very same thing, but I digress. Saving faith comes through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, not through cooperation or anything of the like. Chester's take sounds too much like a works-based salvation to me.
The difficulty you are having arises from the question of what is belief? The Anabaptist view would be that obedience to the Word--works--is the surest sign of true faith. If we are not doing that we are not walking in faith.
Mr. Weaver doesn't understand the reformed doctrine of sanctification and makes a caricature of it. This is what the reformed churches confess. We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith, which is called in Scripture, a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice of those works, which God has commanded in his Word. Which works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by his grace: howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good, before the tree itself is good. Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them, (for what can they merit?) nay, we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do. In the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus then we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed, if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior. Belgic 24 We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other. Belgic 29
WOW I dont use the Heresy word very often but I heard alot of it from Chester. ( He is repackaging a squishy form of Pelagianism) He also has no idea what the Reformed Perspective is. To the discerning reader... read the westminster larger catechism and compare with the scriptures.
Thank you for pointing this out, Jonathan. Should you wish and have time to unpack our mischaracterization and offer a correction, it could be helpful to us and our viewers.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives certainly. Thank you for being willing to listen. My negative reaction to the video stems from the speaker’s portrayal of Luther’s reformation as being exclusively delineated by the doctrine of justification by faith. If one reads Luther’s early and later writings, however, one can easily see that Luther regularly presented his theological principles in pairs and binaries: for example, gospel and law; promise and commandment; faith and works; the vertical and the horizontal; heaven and earth; the church and the state; the personal and the other; and heavenly justification and earthly justification. The speaker seemed to suggest that the “genius” of the Anabaptists was that they took into account both “grace” and “truth” while Luther was misguidedly one sided. Again, anyone who has seriously read Luther knows this is false. I would suggest reading “On the Freedom of a Christian” or his various discussions on the “Two Kinds of Lives” or his famous sermon on the “Two Kinds of Righteousness.” I know the popular understanding of Luther is his insistence on the doctrine of justification by faith but I believe it would be a disservice to him (which maybe is what you all are intending) and a disservice to Christ to not judge righteously. How would you like it if someone painted a picture of you that was wrong in order to seem better? How would Christ like that?
Thank you for explaining, Jonathan. You are correct that it would be a disservice to Christ and Luther to misrepresent him. It is not our intention to do so. We want to be fair and honest with the issues and peopel we speak about, especially those with whom we disagree.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives thank you for comment. I know Luther committed some wrongs but I do not believe it’s right for us to take our judgments of him too far. At the end of the day, he did some good and some bad, just like everyone else. We treat others as we would want to be treated
This view of salvation is too complicated to understand, and it leaves out too many people, therefore it can't be true. In the end God saves everyone. No complex salvation theories necessary. So said Hans Denck.
You need to read your Bible, where you will read that only a few will be saved, the majority of humanity on the broad path that leads to destruction, are not going to be saved. Salvation is available to all so that none should perish, but people prefer the darkness to the light and choose to reject Jesus and salvation, for none shall come to the Father except through Jesus.
What is complicated is all the Theologians who have twisted the message, and given us a Worldview that goes against scripture. I find these things to be quite simple, yet complicated by our own minds. Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
When Chester claims that the Lutheran and Reformed only offered a new package thats primarily about what you believe, "an abstract kind of thing" (17:15-17:30) this is simplistic and inaccurate. The problem is more ecclesological than anything else. The Reformed wanted to reform the people in the image of Christ but were not able to accomplish this as long as church and state hung together because excommunication would require the revoking of citizenship which meant either jail or deportation which opens a huge can of worms politically that no one wanted nor could easily solve. Setting theology against reading the Bible is also problematic. What is theology but right understanding of God? How could right understanding of God be problematic? The entire thing is ironic because Chester proposes to explain Anabaptist theology which makes him a theologian and the burden of this video is to try to prove that Anabaptist theology is the most accurate, not?
Augustine's perversion of the Early Church, and his influence on RC and Reform. I honestly don't understand how you can call him a Theologian based off this exaptation of Early Church ideas and principals. None of it is 'New' or 'Original' in the sense that even Greek Orthodox wouldn't complain about it I doubt.
@@MD-ef9fl I would look up Ken Wilson's mini booklet on his dissertation, "The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism". He does a great job showing how much of Augustine's work takes ideas or reshapes ideas from NeoPlatonic/Mannichean/Stoic Philosophy. Free Will, Just War theory to name two key points reformers took on I disagree with. So did the early Church. He also taught infant baptism, worship of idols, Mary as Sinless.. and more! None of which was practiced as orthodox prior.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 In what way is Augustinian theology negatively impacted by neoplatonic philosophy? Augustine is sound on free will -- it doesn't exist after the lapsus. Just war theory is problematic. But it should be kept in mind that 'just war' is not inherently immoral, we're just called to non resistance in this present era. Regarding Mary and icons, where do you find this in his extant writings?
@@MD-ef9fl Augustine is very far from sound on Free Will.. This isn't really even debatable. Read the book I mentioned. It isn't large. Its again based off an Oxford dissertation and can do much more in an debate styled talk than I can do here to prove such large questions. "Ken Wilson on The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism" It gets into all of it and isn't super long, unless you want to buy the dissertation it is based off of and peer reviewed. It's a lot to talk about, and I don't know that here is the place. Especially when Augustine flips doctrinally after 412, from what was his Orthodox stance. It is also the general stance of 'Anabaptists', and what separated them from the Reformers doctrinally to a large extent. Luther and Calvin drawing HEAVILY from Augustine. On Mary.. De santa virginitate "There he explains that, like the church itself, Mary is both virgin and mother, both physically and spiritually." Augustine said in A.D. 411 that Mary was “a Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual.”
Very good education. God bless you all brother in Christ!
Thank you for the encouraging comment, Allan.
Beautiful...amazing...wonderful...Thank you for these beautifully articulated observations about walking with Jesus; individually and with my friends.
Hi Joel, thank you for the kind words. We're glad that Chester's interview with us was helpful to you.
Wow thanks guys 🙌
Our pleasure!
I appreciate this episode, thank you for sharing!
Our pleasure! We're glad you found it helpful.
I grew up in a “liberal” wing of MCUSA (though I don’t really like the terms liberal and conservative) and that’s still generally how I identify. Because of the visible and social differences between mainstream an conservative Mennonites, I always assumed we didn’t really have much in common, other than a shared history. I assumed I was too worldly and hedonistic for them, and they were too insular and legalistic for me. So I never bothered to form any close relationship with conservative groups.
But when I found myself agreeing and being inspired by much what Chester was saying, particularly on the Anabaptist theological distinctives, I realized that I DO share a lot with conservative Mennonite communities. I TOO was taught the basic framework you described on faith, works, salvation, community, and so on. Like you, I am ALSO wrestling with what a sustainable faith tradition looks like in the throws of the 21st century. I loved when you said that Anabaptism is both “powerful and fragile.” It’s so hard to keep a living faith going, because, necessarily, each generation has to do the hard work of discerning what a faithful walk looks like in their context. What’s more, with the proliferation of technology and cultural exposure, these varied contexts are also proliferating, creating opportunities and also great challenges. If we’d go back to the historic theological position (and practice) that you described, we could be much more helpful to each other as we discern what’s next, hopefully learning to be more patient with each other as we work in an increasingly diffuse reality.
I’ll pray for you if you pray for me.
OK. Deal. Let's pray for each other :-)
Also, we appreciate your comments. Thank you for engaging with this episode.
Thank you so much for this. I have really benefitted from your ministry over the last few years. Most of this session I would have agreed with and taught as an Evangelical pastor. We too believed "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved." Sanctification is a fruit of being justified by faith and the work of grace in my life ultimately in the hope of glorification. I have understood the differences in Evangelicalism and Anabaptism as:
1. Christ was the most supreme revelation of God, He revealed God most completely and sufficiently.
2. A Christ-centered hermeneutic (because Christ was the most supreme revelation of God.) Thus elevating the life and teachings of Christ in light of the rest of the Scriptures.
3. A Real and Realizing Kingdom manifesting itself in reality(instead of an ethereal kingdom that is mysterious.) Thus believing spiritual and physical allegiances do indeed conflict (instead of segregating them)
4. New Covenant Priority (since Christ's Covenant is supreme) instead of trying to join the old and new together.
5. Understanding sound doctrine and discipleship as a pattern of life instead of just a theological endeavor, because the highest revelation of God came as a person who taught and lived what I should now teach and live. Thus, articulating particular theological precepts is insufficient, instead living a particular life (after Christ in sound teaching) is the true manifestation of God's grace in my life.
6. Glorying in Jesus’ life and teachings alongside honoring His death and Resurrection instead of separating his atoning work on the cross from the life he called his disciples to live.
7. Hold obedience as (actual/realized) instead of just conceptual or principled.
Thank you!
Thank you, Jonathan. We appreciate the way you articulated this.
This type of talk is why I can 'Plant my Flag' and consider myself an Anabaptist. I do wish that more of the local communities did not lean on the leg of works so much though, to the point of forgetting Grace. It makes it difficult for new people to join into pre-existing communities by creating regulations that may not be entirely necessary. We definitely need both legs.
You should listen to "Anabaptist idolatry" by Duane Troyer. I plant my flag in Jesus Kingdom only.
@@Benjamin-jo4rf End of the day. I don't consider Anabaptist a denomination, I don't think the founders did either. I do think they kept the spirit of the early church, which is why I can associate. They also don't have a wicked history, and those Mennonites who sided with Hitler for example didn't exactly stick to the foundational principals taught as a whole.
To show concession, I can see that there has been a sort of Apostacia. Falling away, just like what happened with the Early Church in the 3-400s. The cycle repeats, until it culminates. 'Reformation' is about to happen again. Who would you be in history?
@@Benjamin-jo4rf I read it, and agree. However it still does not take away from my point of view. Aligning with Anabaptist's not being a denomination, and another comment prior that I wish many of their Churches did not rely so much on the leg of works so as to exclude other parts of the body. More or less.
The principals remain, and I doubt people like Menno Simons even wanted to have an institution taking his name, over that of Jesus. Anabaptist as a name was a title ascribed to a group of people, like Christians in Antioch. To me, there is a key difference between the two.
From your excerpt, "I want to say one more thing, that earlier quote that I read from Cyprian, he says, whatsoever is appointed by human madness so that the divine disposition is violated, is adulterous, is impious, is sacrilegious, depart far from the contagion of men of this kind, flee from their words and avoid them as a cancer and a plague. As the Lord warns you and says, they are blind leaders of the blind, but if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch. As much as I appreciate that quote, I'd like to add something to it. If we only flee from these things, we will very well likely end up in straights as bad as we are, if there's nothing to flee to. And I'm sure he meant this and knew this too. And Lord willing, sometime in the future, I would like to preach a message that maybe links on to this, on what it means to flee from these things and into the kingdom and what the difference is between His kingdom and just another church to be a part of. The Lord add His blessings."
@@ezrajeremiah8631 I would beg to differ with you on the Anabaptist not having a wicked history. Corey and Jennifer Anderson have written some interesting scholarly writings on some of the issues with Anabaptist folks. I would say that there is a lot more issues with the Anabaptist denomination than meets the naked eye. It's really just a cult and a white supremacist one at that. The Israelites worshipped the golden serpent and I believe that the Anabaptists are doing the same thing.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 The world of Anabaptists is something i am very familiar with. Since i have become and adult I have spent much time studying their history. they like to talk about how special and "powerful" (reagan shrocks and chester weavers words from this interview) they are but in reality they are not much different at all than the catholic, lutherans, and other sects of "Christianity" . They have done more harm than good in the past 500 years. they had a nice beginning but they certainly didnt start anything new. they started out good and almost instantl fell into the sins they still deal with today.
For me salvation is simple. It's the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that leads to a person bending their knee to God's Will and living a life of obedience to Scripture.
Which means that when I see people running around claiming to be saved, but are living in wilful disobedience to Scripture, I can only quote John, 1John 1:6 and 2John 2:9.
They lie and have neither the Father nor the Son.
Amen. And by the way, there are children of God in all kinds of churches, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Anabaptist....they live for Jesus as living sacrifices and often suffer in the very churches who are supposed to keep watch over their souls, all for the glory of God.
@@christianmama2441 I think there are many more true Christians sitting at home not attending church, than what there are actual true Christians attending some of those church denominations you list, and many more fallen church denominations that you did not list.
It's very difficult for one filled with the Holy Spirit to go week after week to a church that is making a mockery of God and the Bible.
For it has become a synagogue of satan. A vile blasphemous cesspit that is a vexation to the true Christian.
Eventually the Holy Spirit within is going to say, enough is enough, this far and no farther. And they stop going to church.
Unfortunately, most do not seek out a more Bible obedient Church, that is firm in the word of God, because most don't know what it is they need to look for in a Church, all they know, church in general is not the place they want to be.
@@broz1488 Simple indeed, easy no :=
@@Vettel2011 when it comes to being tempted to doing something wrong, you just got to say to yourself something like, this will upset God, or God will not be happy if I do this, or this is just not worth giving up heaven for.
To be honest, I find having a list of rules, an ordnung, makes my life much simpler, I don't have to constantly fight with myself or my desires over whether something is permissible or not, it is already decided.
I suspect many Christians without an ordnung spend countless hours fighting with themselves about whether they should or shouldn't do something, and then countless hours feeling guilty for doing it, when they realize that their instinct not to do it was the correct choice, which they ignored.
I also find that the ordnung holds me in the faith on the days I'm just not feeling it. It prevents me from making bad decisions which could have negative consequences.
Obviously being surrounded by brothers who will correct you if you step off the narrow path, is very important.
I think it must be very hard to be a Christian in a modern church, which looks more like a free for all social club than a Church, and everyone offended if you dare try and correct their waywardness.
@@broz1488 yeah
Is there an essay or word document version of this video presentation? I wanted to share it with some friends who don't have access to the internet!
Unfortunantly, we don't have a transcript of this video. You are welcome to download an mp3 file of the conversation from our webiste and share that with your friends. Also, if your friends have Telegram or CloudVeil, they can join our Telegram group which has copies of every episode we publish.
You can click on Show Transcript in the video description. The text will pop up in the upper right corner of your screen, or if you're on a phone, it will show on your full screen. You could copy/paste that text and send or print it out.
Has anyone interacted with the work "Salvation by allegiance alone"? And if so how does this compare with that? I have heard mixed things about that book and haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but it seems that protestant is trying to say something like what is being said here, again I say that having not read the work yet. I'd be interested if anyone has read that, or if Chester has interacted with that.
Hi Jordan. I'm not sure if Chester has interacted with "Salvation by Allegiance Alone" or not. If you'd like to dialog with him about it, feel free to email us, and I can get you into contact with him.
I have enjoyed that book by Matthew Bates. I have not fully digested it and won't venture and opinion on all of his claims. Some things he says that I think are really important and helpful are that the gospel has a climax in the current kingship of Jesus and that "faith" has a lot to do with allegiance to the King. Bates argues that in many passages "allegiance" is a far better translation of than is the word "faith". I agree with Bates that true biblical faith includes (at least) belief about Jesus, public confession that Jesus is Lord, and bodily enacted loyalty.
What about the case of carnal Christian’s like they talk about in the New Testament? If all have come short of the glory of God where’s the line we need to be at to be worthy of heaven?
Jesus is the line. First is the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, next is self discipline, the control of our carnal desires of the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, and to follow the narrow path that is pleasing to God.
The question is not whether God loves us, a given, but whether we love God enough to be obedient and say, not my will but Thy will be done.
As Jesus said, if you love Me, why do you not do what I tell you?
And, the people praise Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.
I would look at Revelation 2 for this. Salvation being a Past, Present, and Future thing.. Only two of the Churches are told to basically continue doing what they are doing, the others are given a warning to straighten up. They were Saved, but were doing things that weren't in line with the Gospel of the Kingdom. If they continued in Sin, and did not participate in the work God had started.. I would assume they would not get their ultimate reward. This also brings to mind the Parable of the Sower, and the various soils and circumstances that we and the seed of faith in us go through.
Looking at a line.. Well, that is an inward thing. Not an outward thing. God will judge the hearts of Men, and where they are actually at with Him inwardly. Regardless of what they profess outwardly.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 I would argue that what is in a man's heart will be revealed on the outside.
Sure one may fake the outside and present a false image of what is going on in one's heart, but eventually time will reveal all truths, for that what is hidden will be revealed.
Thus a heart for God will reveal godliness on the outside, and a heart for the world will reveal worldliness on the outside.
By their fruits you shall know them.
@@broz1488 Yes, but those fruits are the culmination of the internal state. The outward expression. I agree with you, but was trying to bring in some nuance that the fruits are not always there to be seen, but ultimately will be revealed. These Churches being rebuked I am sure had those who ultimately repented, and sought the truth.. Though their fruits in the moment would not have shown it by our standards.
This is where I give room to God, to give grace.. And for us, we will be judged as we have judged others.
We balance on a two edged sword, and I can't claim to be completely sanctified either. So I try to take a humble approach.
I would be open to talking with you about this sometime. I am not claiming to be the arbiter of truth, to have the epignosis-
@@ezrajeremiah8631 if you wish, you can explain to me what you understand by Grace, I'm not sure if I understand that fully.
I may be conflating grace and mercy as the same thing.
Sanctification I feel can only be fully achieved in death. Until then our sanctification rests largely in the shed blood of Jesus.
That was a mischaracterization of Luther’s theology at the beginning
Thanks Jonathan, if you would care to unpack the mischaracterization and give a bit of your own characterization that could be helpful to us and other viewers.
Wow. I've only viewed the part about Chester's view of salvation, and I have to disagree with him here regarding his take on it. Wasn't it the apostle Paul that told the Philippian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...". There are more verses that in effect state the very same thing, but I digress. Saving faith comes through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, not through cooperation or anything of the like. Chester's take sounds too much like a works-based salvation to me.
The difficulty you are having arises from the question of what is belief? The Anabaptist view would be that obedience to the Word--works--is the surest sign of true faith. If we are not doing that we are not walking in faith.
Mr. Weaver doesn't understand the reformed doctrine of sanctification and makes a caricature of it. This is what the reformed churches confess.
We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith, which is called in Scripture, a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice of those works, which God has commanded in his Word. Which works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by his grace: howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good, before the tree itself is good. Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them, (for what can they merit?) nay, we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do. In the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus then we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed, if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.
Belgic 24
We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.
With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him."
As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
Belgic 29
Well-written doctrinal statement. Now show me where these words are lived equally well.
@@ChesterWeaver in conservative reformed churches.
WOW I dont use the Heresy word very often but I heard alot of it from Chester. ( He is repackaging a squishy form of Pelagianism) He also has no idea what the Reformed Perspective is. To the discerning reader... read the westminster larger catechism and compare with the scriptures.
6 min in and I can already tell the characterization of Lutheran theology is wrong
Thank you for pointing this out, Jonathan. Should you wish and have time to unpack our mischaracterization and offer a correction, it could be helpful to us and our viewers.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives certainly. Thank you for being willing to listen. My negative reaction to the video stems from the speaker’s portrayal of Luther’s reformation as being exclusively delineated by the doctrine of justification by faith. If one reads Luther’s early and later writings, however, one can easily see that Luther regularly presented his theological principles in pairs and binaries: for example, gospel and law; promise and commandment; faith and works; the vertical and the horizontal; heaven and earth; the church and the state; the personal and the other; and heavenly justification and earthly justification. The speaker seemed to suggest that the “genius” of the Anabaptists was that they took into account both “grace” and “truth” while Luther was misguidedly one sided. Again, anyone who has seriously read Luther knows this is false. I would suggest reading “On the Freedom of a Christian” or his various discussions on the “Two Kinds of Lives” or his famous sermon on the “Two Kinds of Righteousness.” I know the popular understanding of Luther is his insistence on the doctrine of justification by faith but I believe it would be a disservice to him (which maybe is what you all are intending) and a disservice to Christ to not judge righteously. How would you like it if someone painted a picture of you that was wrong in order to seem better? How would Christ like that?
Thank you for explaining, Jonathan. You are correct that it would be a disservice to Christ and Luther to misrepresent him. It is not our intention to do so. We want to be fair and honest with the issues and peopel we speak about, especially those with whom we disagree.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives thank you for comment. I know Luther committed some wrongs but I do not believe it’s right for us to take our judgments of him too far. At the end of the day, he did some good and some bad, just like everyone else. We treat others as we would want to be treated
This view of salvation is too complicated to understand, and it leaves out too many people, therefore it can't be true. In the end God saves everyone. No complex salvation theories necessary. So said Hans Denck.
You need to read your Bible, where you will read that only a few will be saved, the majority of humanity on the broad path that leads to destruction, are not going to be saved.
Salvation is available to all so that none should perish, but people prefer the darkness to the light and choose to reject Jesus and salvation, for none shall come to the Father except through Jesus.
What is complicated is all the Theologians who have twisted the message, and given us a Worldview that goes against scripture. I find these things to be quite simple, yet complicated by our own minds.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
You didn't make a mistake when you chose that screen name.
Good luck with that wishful thinking...
There is the possibility that Hans Denk could be wrong on that point. . .
When Chester claims that the Lutheran and Reformed only offered a new package thats primarily about what you believe, "an abstract kind of thing" (17:15-17:30) this is simplistic and inaccurate. The problem is more ecclesological than anything else. The Reformed wanted to reform the people in the image of Christ but were not able to accomplish this as long as church and state hung together because excommunication would require the revoking of citizenship which meant either jail or deportation which opens a huge can of worms politically that no one wanted nor could easily solve.
Setting theology against reading the Bible is also problematic. What is theology but right understanding of God? How could right understanding of God be problematic? The entire thing is ironic because Chester proposes to explain Anabaptist theology which makes him a theologian and the burden of this video is to try to prove that Anabaptist theology is the most accurate, not?
Augustine's perversion of the Early Church, and his influence on RC and Reform. I honestly don't understand how you can call him a Theologian based off this exaptation of Early Church ideas and principals. None of it is 'New' or 'Original' in the sense that even Greek Orthodox wouldn't complain about it I doubt.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 What about Augustine's teaching that was later taken up by the Reformers do you find troubling?
@@MD-ef9fl I would look up Ken Wilson's mini booklet on his dissertation, "The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism". He does a great job showing how much of Augustine's work takes ideas or reshapes ideas from NeoPlatonic/Mannichean/Stoic Philosophy.
Free Will, Just War theory to name two key points reformers took on I disagree with. So did the early Church. He also taught infant baptism, worship of idols, Mary as Sinless.. and more! None of which was practiced as orthodox prior.
@@ezrajeremiah8631 In what way is Augustinian theology negatively impacted by neoplatonic philosophy?
Augustine is sound on free will -- it doesn't exist after the lapsus.
Just war theory is problematic. But it should be kept in mind that 'just war' is not inherently immoral, we're just called to non resistance in this present era.
Regarding Mary and icons, where do you find this in his extant writings?
@@MD-ef9fl Augustine is very far from sound on Free Will.. This isn't really even debatable.
Read the book I mentioned. It isn't large. Its again based off an Oxford dissertation and can do much more in an debate styled talk than I can do here to prove such large questions.
"Ken Wilson on The Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism"
It gets into all of it and isn't super long, unless you want to buy the dissertation it is based off of and peer reviewed.
It's a lot to talk about, and I don't know that here is the place. Especially when Augustine flips doctrinally after 412, from what was his Orthodox stance.
It is also the general stance of 'Anabaptists', and what separated them from the Reformers doctrinally to a large extent. Luther and Calvin drawing HEAVILY from Augustine.
On Mary.. De santa virginitate "There he explains that, like the church itself, Mary is both virgin and mother, both physically and spiritually."
Augustine said in A.D. 411 that Mary was “a Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual.”