Menno-Protestants - David Bercot
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Welcome to the Sound Faith channel, where we delve deep into Kingdom Christianity and explore The Historic Faith that has shaped centuries of believers. We uphold Sound Faith principles, drawing inspiration from Scroll Publishing's rich resources. Rooted in Anabaptist traditions, we aim to share teachings and insights that reflect our core beliefs.
If you have any questions please Call Daniel Willis at 717-387-1643
Chambersburg Christian Fellowship (CCF) is a vibrant congregation based in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, dedicated to embodying the teachings of the New Testament and drawing inspiration from the early church's Historic Faith. As passionate Kingdom Christians, we believe in fostering a deep, loving relationship with Jesus Christ, where His teachings guide our daily lives. We share our teachings online through Sound Faith Ministries and The Historic Faith, reaching seekers from all corners of the world. Join us in our mission, online or in person every Sunday at 10:00 AM, as we journey together in faith and commitment to Christ's Kingdom.
One thing that I think has majorly formed Christian thinking is Christian radio. The theology of the teachers is mostly PSA affirming so I can understand why Christians made the shift over time.
This is so true! I would like to add this scripture Luke 14:27-30 "And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."
If, "once saved always saved" were true, then why would anyone mock? What is it that he must "finish"? Why would we need to "bear our cross" to be a disciple? Wouldn't we just be one if we said a prayer in belief? And of course, there's sooooo much more that proves what David is saying.
Can't wait to hear more! Thank you!
A couple points of feedback from a protestant perspective.
1. The requirement of growth in holiness is affirmed by most classical and evangelical denominations. In Protestantism this is called sanctification. The Wesleyan denominations classically believe in entire sanctification in which one is able to attain sinless perfection, which the Dordrecht confession seems to advocate for. In some Lutheran circles this growth is called Christification. In Orthodox churches this process is called theosis. So, the suggestion that holiness is a strictly Mennonite doctrine is not rooted in historic theological realities. Passages like John 15:4, 1 John 3, James 2, Romans 12:2, Titus 3:5, and 1 John 5 seem to suggest a radically transformed life in Christ. If you are a faithful Christian, obedient to God's word you will believe something similar, Mennonite or not.
2. Justification and sanctification seem to be conflated in the Dordrecht confession. As a rule, Justification is the process by which we are declared righteous before God by Christ's death on the cross. Sanctification is the way in which one is being made more holy and like Christ daily. In this way, the confessions could be said to be different. However, the mechanics of both soteriologies are not different. Both protestant and anabaptist theology seems to recommend an outgrowth of good works as proof of purchase by God.
I don't think Anabaptists are unique in regards to growth in Holiness. While I will admit that the Protestant churches have bought into the cultures sins either in part or in whole, I do not believe this is due to an absence of a doctrine on Holiness or Sanctification.
@jasonlowther5700 I appreciate the pushback. Yes, we do affirm that there are many, many Protestant churches that teach a high view of holiness. The Anabaptists don't have a monopoly on holiness!
In Scripture, justification is not always spoken of as a one-time thing, and sanctification is sometimes spoken of as a one-time thing. So Scripture even seems to conflate the two words. -Lynn
We've westernized this term "works" as though it has anything to do with following the commands of Torah. Paul's use of "works" or "works of law" throughout his epistles was in his mind meant to mean "boundary markers that made one a Jew as a means into the covenant of Abraham". "By works of law no man is justified", by becoming Jewish. No one can "boast" about their "works", for it is by faith that initiates one's status in the covenant, which produces the life giving power of the Spirit for holiness, not by circumcision of the flesh, ie becoming Jewish. It's all about what gains you status in the Abrahamic covenant, it's a way of how you get in. Generally speaking, to a first century Jew sanctification was the means to maintain one's status in the covenant of God. This is obedience to God's Torah.
To believe justification is by grace alone through faith in christ alone in which faith is a gift received thru grace does not mean antimonionism. Hebrews teaches God is the author and finisher of our faith. Justification is not synonymous with salvation. Salvation includes whole walk, not just justification but also sanctification all the way to glorification. Its not so much “once saved always saved” but more “IF” saved always saved. Been saved being saved will be saved. Perseverance of the saints. If God has indeed made u born again, regenerated u, he will sanctify u and u will persevere- and those who fall away unrepentant expose themselves as frauds
Great! Thank you!
I fail to see how christus victor cant go alongside penal substitution. Why not both? I believe penal substition because the Scriptures seem clear and explicit that the atonement is substitutionary in our place. Isaiah 53:5
It seems I remember David sharing that he was working with a university recently to develop a course/degree for early church studies. Is this still a current initiative? Thanks.
@golove3204 Unfortunately, there's no news on that yet. It's not likely to happen for a while. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel Thank you for the reply. :-)
What I find interesting about these early Confessions; they say nothing about hardcovers for the sisters. Yet, that is the litmus test for modern day Amish and mennonites.
It so normal that they did not need to speak on the subject. Women covered their head like many still do in many ethniticies do in the world. But after the falsely so called feminism movement, women in the west stopped their head covering practice.
headcovers?
The practice was universal at that time among all Christians and was not an anabaptist distinctive. It is still practiced by Christians outside of western countries and in traditional circles.
It has only become an Anabaptist distinctive in the modern west because every other denomination abandoned the practice over the past ~100 years while Anabaptists retained the practice due to a high value of tradition.
In this case. It seem that clinging to a tradition allowed them to retain a thoroughly biblical practice.
I would like to share a lengthy quote from Menno Simons REPLY TO GELLIUS FABER page 95 in the second part of Menno Simons Complete Works. This begins with Menno quoting Faber's accusation "In the second place he accuses us, saying, "they have an obdurate faith; one half of which is founded on the merits of Christ, and the other upon their own merits. For Obbe Phillips (as he says) does plainly assert that the justification of man is not brought about by faith alone, but by faith, love, and good works" Answer. I would humbly ask Gellius this question: Does it follow that because Obbe Phillips formerly taught this doctrine, Menno and the others also teach it? If he answer in the affirmative I would say that he does us an injustice, as, alas, he often does. For our doctrine and publications abundantly testify that we and the church of God are not thus minded, BUT THAT WE SEEK JUSTIFICATION ALONE IN THE RIGHTEOUS AND CRUCIFIED CHRIST JESUS."
(I apologize for the sarcasm that previously occupied this post script space, no excuse for it)
@JT-qx9bp Thanks for that quote. I'm not sure entirely what Menno meant by that statement. Interestingly, he never says in that letter that he believes in justification by faith alone, just that it's in Christ alone. He stresses that our works can't save us, which we on this channel believe as well.
However, in this letter, Menno makes clear that he believes works are necessary, and criticizes faith alone.
He criticizes some teachers by saying "they flatter the people with the idea that Christ remitted our sins; that faith alone, avails; that they are poor, weak sinners who cannot keep the commandments of God, and other like idle consolations; so that every body lives according to the lusts of his flesh, singing, and crying, 'The cord is loosed and we are free,' and turn the grace of God into unrighteousness"
"the sacraments . . . according to the Scriptures properly belong to the penitent alone, who have placed themselves in the church of the Lord, in obedience to the word"
I'm not a scholar of Menno Simons, so I could be wrong, but it sounds like he's stressing that we can't save ourselves, and pointing out that he's been misunderstood, but not actually holding to the Protestant doctrine that's typically called faith alone. What are your thoughts? -Lynn
Thanks for your reply. I believe what Menno is saying is that there is no righteousness outside of Christ. My concern is that your channel in general promotes a works based righteousness, misunderstanding works in the opposite ditch of those who believe "faith alone" means an intellectual acknowledgement of Christ.
We believe in Jesus the same way we come "in" to a house. It is through faith alone that we come "into" Christ, surrendering ourselves, our sins, and our own false righteousness. The only righteousness that avails before God is the righteousness that is found in Christ. The righteousness of Christ is active in the one who has faith and our faith is vindicated by our works as James describes in chapter 2. But "without faith it is impossible to please God"(Heb 11:6).
When I say I am saved by Faith Alone I am not speaking of the solitude of faith but rather that only through the step of faith through the door opened by grace do I come "into" Christ. Being in Christ I cease my own works and my works are by the power of God working in me as in Colossians 1:29
I listen to your channel out of an appreciation for all serious Bible study, something which is often too rare in our Anabaptist world, but this concern often comes up when I listen.
@JT-qx9bp I appreciate your response. In the letter, Menno does say that our works are very imperfect and can't save us. And we'd agree.
The view we promote here is that, when we are initially saved (brought "in Christ" and into the kingdom), that is only on the basis of faith, not works. But then the final judgment takes our works into account. So we do agree with your statement that "only through the step of faith through the door opened by grace do I come "into" Christ."
We also agree that our works after initial salvation are empowered by God. But we do have the choice to obey or disobey, and we, not God, are responsible for how we choose. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it.
@@JT-qx9bp it will always be salvation by faith alone vindicated by works.
Thank you David, very good. One question I have you mentioned a few times about a documentary your church watched, what is the title of the documentary?
@andrewrutt1274 It's called Mennonites: The Peaceful Revolution. Chester Weaver writes about it here: www.sounddoctrinearchives.org/where-liberals-went
I'm curious what David might say to someone who says that he shouldn't call himself Anabaptist. The challenge might go something along these lines. You (David) hold to baptismal regeneration which is not a historically Mennonite teaching, you hold to real presence in the Eucharist, also not historically Mennonite/Anabaptist. Neither of the positions held by David are supported by the Dortrecht Confession even though they both get their own article. Perhaps I am mistaken on David's own views (in which case I apologize) but I am curious to how he would respond.
@jordanmartin1932 That's a very good question. I don't know exactly what David would say, but here's what I'd say for myself:
Although there are a couple of places where I disagree with historic Anabaptist doctrines, I hold to nearly all the doctrines of Anabaptism and agree with its focus on lifestyle and holiness being more central than doctrine. So one could say that I'm 95% Anabaptist, in which case, it's just simpler to say "Anabaptist." I even call those Anabaptists who hold to Protestant theology "Anabaptist" as well, even if they might be more like 80% Anabaptist. So it makes sense to call myself Anabaptist.
What are your thoughts? -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel I will try to highlight what I am thinking clearly. I belong to a conservative Mennonite church in an area where there are lots of them around. David at minute 22-23 says (not an exact quote here) if you have lost the vision, your history and your theology, perhaps you shouldn't call yourself Anabaptist anymore. This comes in the context of talking just prior about Mennonites going to Moody's and teaching Sola Fide. It is also in the context of talking about how both Sola Fide and PSA are not compatible with the teachings at Dortrecht. However from my experience while those teaching may be implicitly in our churches, there are very few people in my setting that would even know what you are talking about if you mention these things (sola Fide/PSA). Most likely would say something that sounds pretty protestant in regards to Sola Fide, but all of them would also say that it is required that you live a holy life. Verbal assent alone isn't sufficient. There is very rarely any talk about atonement theories at all. Jesus saved us with His death and that's good enough. If you want to have a view on how that works that would be fine. However if you try to teach that baptism is salvific and you would get more than a few raised eyebrows. From my perspective it is a little disingenuous to wonder whether someone is really "anabaptist" because they hold to PSA or perhaps Sola Fide, when, at the same time you hold views that are clearly not anabaptist positions, and that most people within anabaptism (from what I can tell) would find more problematic than an atonement theory. I guess that is my concern. If you want to gate keep who is anabaptist by the Dordrecht Confession (as it felt like David was musing about at 22-23 min) then perhaps at least acknowledging that you don't agree with 2 of the articles would be important. I may have read into what he i saying too much, but that's how it came across to me and why I left a comment.
There is another point to be made (which I see other comments have already made) about how Sola Fide doesn't necessarily lead to godless living. One can believe that salavation is accomplished by faith while maintaining that holiness is necessary for maintenance, but not how we attain our salvation. There have been plenty of holiness movements within Protestantism. If Anabaptism is just a "holiness movement" it could be placed along side Weslyanism and others. But I see you have interacted with that elsewhere in the comments.
I'm actually sympathetic to your positions on the things I mention in this comment largely, but its mostly what I perceived to be "gatekeeping" of "true anabaptism" based on theology that most people wouldn't even have terms for that I find problematic. As you mentioned the focus is more on lifestyle and holiness rather than doctrine (which has it strengths and weaknesses). Hopefully this comment made sense to you and you can receive it in the spirit intended. Appreciate the reply.
@jordanmartin1932 Thanks for the response, and that makes a lot of sense. I think you have a valid concern.
If we were to insist that those who believe Sola Fide and PSA are not Anabaptists, and if we were to insist that people must believe our views on the effectiveness of baptism and communion, then I agree with you that our position would be contradictory.
But here's why I don't think it is a contradiction. I don't think David said that of most Conservative Anabaptists, but of the liberal Mennonites. David has a very high level of respect for the Conservative Anabaptists, and has intentionally chosen to throw in his lot with them/us, in spite of his disagreements on some points. And I don't think he insisted that even the liberal Mennonites can't be called Anabaptists.
And though we teach the effectiveness of baptism and communion, I think we've been pretty clear that that's not a historic Anabaptist view, and also we haven't been insisting that people need to believe it.
What are your thoughts on this? -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I don't doubt that David has a high level of respect for conservative Mennonites, or that he would not insist upon someone who holds to Sola Fide not calling themselves Anabaptist.
However to make sure I wasn't misremembering I went back to re-listen to the part of the video that struck me the most (minute 21-23:30). Its hard not to see the criticism of losing your Original Vision, history, and theology as leveled at Anabaptism as a whole (not just liberal Mennonites). Why? Because he makes this comment in the context of talking about people in the mid 1800's going to Moody's and then teaching Sola Fide. Perhaps I am incorrect (and if so feel free to correct me) but this would predate most if not all the conservative/liberal splits among Mennonites. At least in the streams I am familiar with even old order Mennonites really didn't come into being until the later part of the 1800s. So the charge does seem to fall on both liberal and conservatives. I'm not even arguing David is wrong here, its very possible the vision, theology and history were lost or distorted, but if that is true, it is almost certainly true of many conservative Mennonite churches as well since most of them (that aren't old order) didn't split off until well after the mid 1800s. If men such as Daniel Kaufmann could be said to be "menno protestant" then most of the churches I know (who still read his writings) likely fall into the same camp.
David also says (22:53) "If we don't believe what they believed back then, if the Dortrecht Confession we're almost ashamed of, whoa that's almost works salvation, then maybe don't call yourself Anabaptist...." Replace the words "works salvation" with something like "whoa that looks like a symbolic interpretation of Baptism" and it seems as if you could have David arguing against himself saying something like if we don't believe what they believed back then, if the Dortrecht confession we're almost ashamed of like who that's a symbolic interpretation of baptism and communion then perhaps we shouldn't call ourselves anabaptist.
Perhaps this is simply a discussion about where different doctrines rank in importance historically for the Anabaptist community and we see that differently, and that is fine. If have no issue with David calling himself an Anabaptist to be clear, I'm just pointing out how this came across to me. Good chance it wasn't intended as I heard it, but I thought it worth a comment for clarity since we have that option. I appreciate David's work especially as a church historian, and I am checking to see if what I heard was what he meant.
Thanks for your time and effort in replying. I realize I am not the best at making my point in short form.
@jordanmartin1932 Thanks for clarifying. I'll mention it to David. We definitely don't want to be giving the wrong impression.
I think another way of getting at what David was saying is that many Anabaptists basically traded out their beliefs for Protestantism, in which case they might as well have called themselves Protestants. In our case, we've prioritized the early church over Anabaptism, but I think we've communicated fairly clearly that our primary goal is to follow what the earliest Christians held to as the faith, and our next goal is to live that out within Anabaptism, which we feel is the group that best holds to those teachings today. -Lynn
The most conservative Mennonite churches--especially Nationwide and Eastern--have not lost this understanding from the Dordrecht Confession when it comes to their theology regarding salvation. When visiting these churches they teach a theology of faith and obedience coupled with a transformed life emphasizing "walking with Christ" for salvation.
I wonder if this is more of an issue among moderate conservative Mennonite churches that are being more influenced more by Protestant views via media etc.
They do, however, need to work on having the same zeal for evangelism that the early anabaptists had.
@Brennan746 There's a lot of truth to what you say. I grew up in a similar church, the Washington County, MD, Mennonite Conference, and I can verify that Protestantism has not fully taken root there. The less conservative churches tend to have more of this, it's true.
However, the trouble is that these ultra-conservative churches don't effectively teach their members theology. So if any of them start studying theology on their own, they tend to go toward Protestantism. I know fellow church members who have fully embraced PSA, who have become Calvinist, etc. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannel Lynn can you please give a source text or reference to your statement "...these ultra-conservative churches don't effectively teach their members theology." ?
@andrewschiffer4323 I grew up in one of these churches, and that's my first-hand experience. I also have friends who grew up in multiple other churches, and that's what they've told me.
Hey, I love those churches. They produce many godly people. Just pointing out that fact. -Lynn
Luther preached that we are saved by grace through faith, what does easy believism mean? 🤔
I think easy believism means, "all you have to do is believe to be saved, nothing more". A person could live an unrepentant life, and never have to change, yet they believed and are said to be saved according to easy believism. Although I am just going on my own recollection so I'm definitely not claiming to be the authority on the matter.
they believe in being justified...or saved, and then sanctified....which means a changed life....
I think a lot of the early anabaptists believed you were born again before baptism and that remains one of their major errors.Protestants separate the Blood of Christ from the will of the living God therefore cannot see a connection between baptism and salvation;John 3:5. God withholds the blood of Christ until one is immersed in water as an appeal for a good conscience.1 Peter 3:21 New American Standard Bible and Acts 22:16
@@w35655
John the Baptist was the last old testament prophet, preparing the way for Christ. Jesus baptizes us in the Spirit of faith when we believe the gospel (1Cor.4:15, Matt.3:11, 2Cor.4:13-15). Baptism is being 'buried with Him' into His death (Rom.6:3,4) so that we can 'reckon' ourselves 'dead to sin' (Rom.6:2,11) and therefore 'under grace' (Rom.6:14), 'through faith in His blood' (Rom.3:25) and belonging now to Him (1Cor.3:19-23).
So the thief on the cross was not saved and Jesus was a liar?
Wow, this is exactly what the Jehovah's witnesses teach. Wait, David was a JW.
@andrewschiffer4323 What "is exactly what the Jehovah's witnesses teach"? And please don't just make claims, give citations. -Lynn
@@SoundFaithChannelwhy don't you look it up so you have more insight? The JW's believe you have to be baptized in order to be saved.
for by faith are ye saved through faith not by works lest any man should boast
Amen
what type of response is required....
I have a question and maybe someone can help me answer this. I have for a long time gone to this Baptist church but in recent years I came to an understanding of the historic faith and the true nature of salvation by faith and works taught from the Anabaptist. I see myself all the time in disagreement in the Baptist church and wonder if I should even bother to still go? Especially given everything they usually preach I see myself not aligned with and not only that but many of them would arguably not even consider me a christian for probably not holding to sola fide. What should I do?
Sola fide is wrong. The scriptures say we must add to our faith, virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and knowledge temperance, and to temperance, godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness.
Faith without these things will leave us barren and unfruitful.
Pray to find a congregation that obey the teachings of the Lord Jesus. But I believe God can use you there. I have a very good friend who our heavenly Father told to be part of a normal evangelical congregation with his family. He believes the gospel of the kingdom of God and his family is modest, but God opened doors there for him and he is labouring with them and seeing results.
May God bless you my friend, I would encourage you to ask God to guide you through His Holy Spirit.
In our human way of thinking, we assume that if we follow a group that seems biblical we are doing God’s will, but read the book of acts with open and honest mind and pray to the Lord to show you his ways.
God has called us to be light beacons by His power through Holy Spirit , not just to seek mental agreement and knowledge only.
For the Kingdom of God in not in word only, but in the demonstration of the Power of the Holy Spirit. And the kingdom of Christ is not in eating and drinking but in righteousness, love, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
May my God be with you,
@@JustatreecutterGreat point! I'm going to remember this!
Notice in Gal.2:16 that justification requires believing in Jesus Christ. True believers are 'justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law'.
Only one Man ever kept the law perfectly in thought, emotion, word and deed: Christ Jesus, God's sent-from-heaven 'salvation' (Lu.2:30, Jn.3:27). Receiving Christ is the one requirement (Jn.1:12), as that's receiving His atonement for sin (Rom.5:11), as I understand it.
@@michaelstanley4698 So you're arguing in favor of sola fide?
Sola fide does not teach antimonianism. U misunderstand the two because of ur own bad experience in a small church that taught pray this prayer and thats it- thats a modern issue not what the protestants were teaching.
What is the documentary referenced around the 26 minute mark?
It's called Mennonites: The Peaceful Revolution. Chester Weaver writes about it here: www.sounddoctrinearchives.org/where-liberals-went
Patriarchy is the strength of Islam. When Christianity abandoned patriarchy, it sealed its own fate. Original Christianity was a form of gentle patriarchy, and that is one major factor as to why it was able to revolutionize the civilized world.
@@atonementandreconciliation3749 if patriarchy is the strength of Islam, isn’t it just as possible that it’s a red flag??🚩 🚩Islamic tenets are not exactly a place I’d look to for my ideals 🧐
@gingerlea3828 Islam is a very male centered belief system. Which makes it masculine but in my opinion lacks gentleness because it is a harsh theocracy in it's fullest form. Whereas Christianity has in many ways in the last century gone along with culture which has become more feminine due to equal rights on work and marriage, in good part due to birth control. Prior to birth control women couldn't have relations without a likelihood of pregnancy meaning she needed protection and also chastity was valued in society too. A lot of that has been lost in the west.
VHTC looks like a thought-provoking way of looking at churches and Christian denominations. It should be a useful framework.
I think David is right on the money when he identifies the problem in modern evangelical Protestantism. I wonder, though, if there might be a risk of an overreaction.
For example, the modern evangelical practice of sola fide as a sort of “easy-believism” or “once saved always saved” is certainly a dangerous error to be warned against. Yet, if we define “faith” and “grace” in the same way as the New Testament defines these terms, I don’t see how an Anabaptist could simply categorically deny that we are saved by faith alone and grace alone.
Can’t we show that Biblical “faith” is to be seen as synonymous with “faithfulness” and underscore the imperative of obedience to Christ and still recognize that we will only ever be saved because we are forgiven by the grace of God?
If an unbeliever sins, he will only be forgiven if he believes, repents, and gets baptized. If he sins after his baptism, he is once again in need of forgiveness, which he attains by confession and repentance. Yet the necessity of confession and repentance does not diminish the fact that our sins are only ever forgiven by God’s grace. And indeed, if we might view sin as an expression of a lack of faith, or as a lack of faithfulness, you could say that repentance itself is to come back to faith.
What convinces me of this is that in so many of Christ’s miracles we are told “your faith has made you well”. Even though these people DID things (maybe you could call them works) to reach Christ or call out to him, it was their faith that made them well because their faith was “living” enough to inform their actions.
I’m sorry I ended up rambling. I appreciate David’s teaching very much and I think he’s right in pointing out the problems in evangelicalism. I just worry that we can lose sight of the gospel if we overreact and categorically eliminate the idea that our own merits aren’t good enough. As if our good works can outweigh our sins, instead of recognizing that works are necessary for a living faith that saves us from our sins that we can not atone for.
@@calebpearce9334
Faithfulness is not exactly faith, but comes later as a fruit of faith and repentance with true godly sorrow. One verse seems to verify your thoughts, on the 'fruit of the Spirit', if any. John 3:16 is simple enough.
'Believing on Him (Christ)' results in 'everlasting life'. But God does desire 'good works' (Eph.2:10), in those newly 'created in Christ Jesus', and ordains that we should then 'walk in them', as we 'walk in the Spirit' (Rom.8;9, 32).
@calebpearce9334 You said, "if we define “faith” and “grace” in the same way as the New Testament defines these terms, I don’t see how an Anabaptist could simply categorically deny that we are saved by faith alone and grace alone."
This is a good point, but I would point out two things. One is that when the term "faith alone" is used, the definition of "faith" that is used is typically "belief" or "trust." So it would be very misleading to say that we believe in "faith alone" as what we mean would not be what others hear us as saying.
The second is that Scripture itself says that we're not saved by faith alone, so we know that faith doesn't always include works. I believe that's because faith has multiple different meanings even in Scripture. It can mean belief, trust, or loyalty. We have to use the context to understand which meaning is being called for.
Just my thoughts. -Lynn
😅I agree, the thief on the cross is definitely burning in hell. Jesus just don’t understand Anabaptist theology.
@virgilcrowe7795 You clearly didn't catch what was said in the video. If you want a fuller treatment of the subject, see this video as well: czcams.com/video/JzqDV91AFPo/video.html -Lynn
Virgil Crowe you should go watch Lutheran satire's video on the thief on the cross. I think it kind of shows where you're wrong.
Lynn from sound faith loves the word "clearly". Just an observation.
@@prayunceasingly2029 ironically Frans video was on why Baptismal regeneration was Biblical, not why you need to live a totally repented without sin to be saved (which seems to be the logical conclusion of the Anabaptist argument presented here). The criticism here is that the theif on the cross had no chance to live a changed life, and yet was still saved. If a changed/repentant life is required for salvation, the theif on the cross could not have obtained it. If he did obtain it then salvation must be by grace through faith, not by works of righteousness or personal holiness.
@jasonlowther5700 "you need to live a totally repented without sin to be saved (which seems to be the logical conclusion of the Anabaptist argument presented here)"
It seems that way because you don't fully understand the position being presented. Of course, looking at our position on baptism and works, and filling it out with the Protestant beliefs on atonement and God's demands, it will look silly. But that's not the position we hold.
This article answers your objection: anabaptistfaith.org/salvation-includes-faith-and-works/