I would love to hear more about what he said about when he was growing up it was taught you need to be a member of a church to be saved( I think that's what he meant?). Does the Bible teach that? Obviously the church is of the utmost importance, and I think that it should be a priority for all Christians but is church membership necessary to be saved? Also would like to know what is the purpose of the church? Maybe you have addressed it already? I heard him mention the church being a "beacon of light" but do not know much about that. Should the churchs role be primarily to evangelize or to nourish it's members first, then evangelize? Thanks!
As I understand, John D. Martin learned kingdom theology from American Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones. It would be interesting to hear about the way (and the extent to which) Martin has appropriated his writings, especially his 1940 publication "Is the Kingdom of God Realism?"
you can go to heaven by beleiving that Jesus Christ was a perfect human and was God, and was the perfect sacrifice for your sins. You did nothing to deserve this, and you did nothing that made Christ do this. Just beleive in Him, and you will be saved!
In a spectators perspective or perhaps as an independent perspective it is my opinion that it is very easy as in almost being inbred for Anabaptist youth to believe they are the only Christians left within today's mainstream Christianity. I also believe that it is not only of the uppermost importance, but is absolutely necessary for one to look back at generations of the past and not only the Anabaptist generations either, but the generations who were born either right after or before the year 1900 who were faithful members of Protestant churches such as the Baptist and Penticostals, etc.. Compare that generation of members to the members of the very same churches today. If one would only take the time to unbiasedly and intelligently examine the two differences then it is my belief that one would very quickly understand why it is easy for a lot of Anabaptists to believe they are the only Christians left in this moral decaying society we have today. Today's mainstream Christians would realize that they are more or less accusing, not only their past members of their churches, but past members of their own families of being legalists. Legalists solely for the fact that they did not approve of what the same churches of today are approving and allowing. Many Protestant denominations of today are, in my opinion, borderline agnostics in their beliefs. So much so that instead of admitting they no longer approve of nor want to read or hear anything Jesus or his apostles have to say, they rewrite and reword the Bible to say whatever they would like to hear and read. My question to them is why is it so difficult to comprehend that we're talking about Christianity here? Not sociology! Even though I believe sociology and financial benefits literally have everything to do with why Bibles are being rewritten and reworded. Why don't they just admit that they also believe the more one tries to live the Bible the more ignorant they are. That's the agnostic in them. All in all I can understand why so many Anabaptists believe the Anabaptist faith may be the only Christian faith left. Although I don't believe they are, I do understand why they may believe they are. But they sure are a lot closer to being so today than they were a century ago - that's for sure. But only the ones who, no matter what, refuses to be almost gypsy like in their impressions and opportunities at receiving money. It is best to not be someone's friend at all and to let them know this right away than to go along with or lead them on just in order to receive money from them. Proverbs chapter seven warns others to be aware and avoid the adulterous woman for her intentions were of the same. And Protestants need to understand that they themselves are sometimes partly to be blamed for putting themselves in that position without considering all the circumstances. One may argue that times have changed. But one must also ask themselves the question of why have times changed? Who have had the greatest influence on teenagers and young adults? Our children of today will be our adults of tomorrow. Who and how they are influenced by and more importantly is why they are being influenced will determine who should be held responsible. The question that should be asked by oneself after the fact is why should Christians be taught to accept any societal changes after determining who's mostly responsible for these changes? I apologize for such a long winded and perhaps rambling comment and I don't expect anyone to read it all, but this topic is one I hold close and take seriously. I may only be a spectator and an independent one at that, but at my age and observation I have seen many changes. Changes in Christianity. It is how one approaches these changes that will determine who's closer to being the only Christians left. Keep in mind that according to the latest statistics in just twenty-seven years Islam will have surpassed Christianity in the United States. Not that Islam is growing so fast, but that Christianity is declining so rapidly. Perhaps Christianity is paying the price for rewriting and rewording the letters written by the apostles and supporting one's political party ahead of supporting one's spiritual needs. Perhaps one day pretty soon the Anabaptists may just be the only Christians left.
Glad he mentioned the Puritans. Seems like Mr. Martin should study postmillenialism from guys like Douglas Wilson, Kenneth Gentry, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, and Rich Lusk. Not at all Anabaptists, but reformed catholics who have a sturdy kingdom vision that I think Mr. Martin would find incredibly satisfying.
1:40 John D Martin starts critiquing Titus perfectly valid point. John D then says the pilgrims were great Kingdom Christians and talks about city in the hill quote even though the pilgrims were terrible people who absolutely were not a city on a hill
@AnabaptistPerspectives When Jesus started his ministry he only preached Kingdom of Heaven, so did John the Baptist, if the Jews would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah the Kingdom of Heaven would have bein at hand and Jesus would have reigned for 1000 years, but after John got beheaded and they rejected Jesus as the Messiah everything switch to Kingdom of God and to the gentiles, after the Church gets raptured there is the 7 year tribulation, that’s where Jesus will turn back to the Jews.
I would love to hear more about what he said about when he was growing up it was taught you need to be a member of a church to be saved( I think that's what he meant?). Does the Bible teach that? Obviously the church is of the utmost importance, and I think that it should be a priority for all Christians but is church membership necessary to be saved? Also would like to know what is the purpose of the church? Maybe you have addressed it already? I heard him mention the church being a "beacon of light" but do not know much about that. Should the churchs role be primarily to evangelize or to nourish it's members first, then evangelize? Thanks!
As I understand, John D. Martin learned kingdom theology from American Methodist missionary E. Stanley Jones. It would be interesting to hear about the way (and the extent to which) Martin has appropriated his writings, especially his 1940 publication "Is the Kingdom of God Realism?"
So just for clarification...Can people other than Anabaptists go to Heaven? What if they dont know about the Gospel of the kingdom?
you can go to heaven by beleiving that Jesus Christ was a perfect human and was God, and was the perfect sacrifice for your sins. You did nothing to deserve this, and you did nothing that made Christ do this. Just beleive in Him, and you will be saved!
In a spectators perspective or perhaps as an independent perspective it is my opinion that it is very easy as in almost being inbred for Anabaptist youth to believe they are the only Christians left within today's mainstream Christianity. I also believe that it is not only of the uppermost importance, but is absolutely necessary for one to look back at generations of the past and not only the Anabaptist generations either, but the generations who were born either right after or before the year 1900 who were faithful members of Protestant churches such as the Baptist and Penticostals, etc.. Compare that generation of members to the members of the very same churches today. If one would only take the time to unbiasedly and intelligently examine the two differences then it is my belief that one would very quickly understand why it is easy for a lot of Anabaptists to believe they are the only Christians left in this moral decaying society we have today. Today's mainstream Christians would realize that they are more or less accusing, not only their past members of their churches, but past members of their own families of being legalists. Legalists solely for the fact that they did not approve of what the same churches of today are approving and allowing.
Many Protestant denominations of today are, in my opinion, borderline agnostics in their beliefs. So much so that instead of admitting they no longer approve of nor want to read or hear anything Jesus or his apostles have to say, they rewrite and reword the Bible to say whatever they would like to hear and read. My question to them is why is it so difficult to comprehend that we're talking about Christianity here? Not sociology! Even though I believe sociology and financial benefits literally have everything to do with why Bibles are being rewritten and reworded. Why don't they just admit that they also believe the more one tries to live the Bible the more ignorant they are. That's the agnostic in them.
All in all I can understand why so many Anabaptists believe the Anabaptist faith may be the only Christian faith left. Although I don't believe they are, I do understand why they may believe they are. But they sure are a lot closer to being so today than they were a century ago - that's for sure. But only the ones who, no matter what, refuses to be almost gypsy like in their impressions and opportunities at receiving money. It is best to not be someone's friend at all and to let them know this right away than to go along with or lead them on just in order to receive money from them. Proverbs chapter seven warns others to be aware and avoid the adulterous woman for her intentions were of the same. And Protestants need to understand that they themselves are sometimes partly to be blamed for putting themselves in that position without considering all the circumstances.
One may argue that times have changed. But one must also ask themselves the question of why have times changed? Who have had the greatest influence on teenagers and young adults? Our children of today will be our adults of tomorrow. Who and how they are influenced by and more importantly is why they are being influenced will determine who should be held responsible. The question that should be asked by oneself after the fact is why should Christians be taught to accept any societal changes after determining who's mostly responsible for these changes? I apologize for such a long winded and perhaps rambling comment and I don't expect anyone to read it all, but this topic is one I hold close and take seriously. I may only be a spectator and an independent one at that, but at my age and observation I have seen many changes. Changes in Christianity. It is how one approaches these changes that will determine who's closer to being the only Christians left.
Keep in mind that according to the latest statistics in just twenty-seven years Islam will have surpassed Christianity in the United States. Not that Islam is growing so fast, but that Christianity is declining so rapidly. Perhaps Christianity is paying the price for rewriting and rewording the letters written by the apostles and supporting one's political party ahead of supporting one's spiritual needs. Perhaps one day pretty soon the Anabaptists may just be the only Christians left.
so are we to live apart, from the general population, such as the Amish do....
John isn't promoting this.
Kingdom Hall?
Glad he mentioned the Puritans. Seems like Mr. Martin should study postmillenialism from guys like Douglas Wilson, Kenneth Gentry, Peter Leithart, James Jordan, and Rich Lusk. Not at all Anabaptists, but reformed catholics who have a sturdy kingdom vision that I think Mr. Martin would find incredibly satisfying.
I agree. There could be edifying exchange, especially since the Anabaptist tradition started out of the Reformed (rather than Lutheran) tradition.
Not sure why I should believe in that
1:40 John D Martin starts critiquing Titus perfectly valid point. John D then says the pilgrims were great Kingdom Christians and talks about city in the hill quote even though the pilgrims were terrible people who absolutely were not a city on a hill
The kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are different.
How so?
@AnabaptistPerspectives When Jesus started his ministry he only preached Kingdom of Heaven, so did John the Baptist, if the Jews would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah the Kingdom of Heaven would have bein at hand and Jesus would have reigned for 1000 years, but after John got beheaded and they rejected Jesus as the Messiah everything switch to Kingdom of God and to the gentiles, after the Church gets raptured there is the 7 year tribulation, that’s where Jesus will turn back to the Jews.