Emir Caner has recently released a paper in defense of the anabaptists in an attempt to set the record straight. I highly encourage anyone who is interested in Church history to take a minute and read it.

Highlights include:

• Anabaptists were hated by everyone so it’s no surprise they have been maligned in history courses for centuries.
• Anabaptists promoted “believers baptism” as opposed to “paedobaptism” which was the main cause of their mistreatment (some were even killed in the US for their refusal to baptize infants).
• Anabaptists did not hold to a strict hierarchy of clergy (and for this reason were often mislabeled as anarchists)
• Anabaptists promoted simple or house church.¹
• Anabaptists objected to theology that ultimately would not lead to primitive Christianity.²
• Anabaptists did not waver in their belief that God wrote the Bible to be understood
  clearly and explicitly. (as opposed to having to be understood through “trained clergy” per the magisterial reformers or “the priests” per Rome).
  Anabaptists highly valued a clear separation of church and state. This should come as no surprise considering they were killed by everyone in Europe.

Finally, I leave you with a quote from the article:

On 29 May 1525, an unknown peasant farmer, known as a ―pious goodhearted man‖ was
given the privilege of being the first Swiss Anabaptist martyr. Not much is known of this young
man—his birth, his life, even his name—whether he was Eberli Bolt or Bolt Eberli. In 1525, he
found himself in the midst of a spiritual revolution in his country and he himself was placed in
the center of this religious equation. Along with another priest, Eberli was talked into going to
St. Gallen where he chose to be baptized and was ―pressed into preaching service on behalf of
the movement because he could speak well. Johann Kessler, a contemporary of Eberli, spoke
of Eberli‘s sermon as so ―abundantly eloquent that ―hereupon many of the citizens and rural
people consented [to baptism]. His words were so convincing that many ―came to the city
daily and asked where the baptism house was and then left as if they had been to the barber‘s.

When he arrived at home in his canton, Eberli was quickly arrested and sentenced to
death as a heretic. As the chronicler described it, ―Soon [he] approached the fire stakes with
joyful bearing and died willingly and joyfully. Eberli understood what most Christians today
completely miss—it is an honor to suffer for Christ‘s sake. He was the first martyr in a line of
martyrs that, according to Estep, would last for three centuries. He was the first in a line of a
number that only the Lord knows and that could only be revealed in heaven. He gladly bore his
cross.

1. This was actually more of an outworking from the commitment to a primitive church experience devoid of the trappings of buildings, luxury, and political affiliation.
2. This is one of the tenets which helped produce descendants of the anabaptists such as the Amish, Quakers, Mennonites, etc.

Would we be more pious than Jesus? – “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given Me” – Jn 17:9

During the course of our conversation on the implications of the thought expressed above I come up with the following logical argument for God’s loving the whole world as opposed to a small segment of it per reformed theology.

Per the ontological argument: We can never be more pious than Jesus.

Since love for the whole world is better than love for a particular “favored” group (per Jesus’s own admonition that it is more admirable to love one’s enemy than it is to merely love one’s friend).

We can see that it logically follows that God must love the whole world and not merely a segment of it since failure to do so would entail the illogical conclusion that we are, per the initial comment, “more pious” than the God who is the very definition of good.

No, it’s not very polished and I invite comments and thoughts on it, but I figured its a pretty good start!

UPDATE:
A friend of mine pointed out that I should probabally post a little more showing my thought process and why I think my arguement fits in with “ontology” in general.

Ontology is the study of “being” and the sense I’m using it in here is along the lines of the ontological argument for God’s existence specifically Descartes’ formula:

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Here, though, I’m attempting to show that God does indeed love the whole world in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine that God only “effectively” loves a small subset known as the elect.

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin examines a new peer-reviewed paper that demolishes a very common and very fallacious objection to intelligent design. That objection? “Aren’t there vast eons of time for evolution?”

For more information on this and other peer-reviewed papers relating to intelligent design, visit Evolution News & Views at www.evolutionnews.org.

Listen to the full podcast here.

This is a great day to be a proponent of Intellegent Design.

What it means

Hebrew

בָּרָ

Transliteration/Pronunciation

baraq/bä·räk’

Strong’s

H1300

Definition

Flash, lightning, glittering.

Generally something that is big and impressive, but doesn’t last very long. It’s used to describe lightning, swords, the voice of God when He speaks, and the appearance of the messiah in Ezekiel and Daniel.

Where It’s Found

Exodus 19:16; Deuteronomy 32:41; II Samuel 22:15; Job 20:25; Job 38:35; Psalms 18:14; Psalms 77:18; Psalms 97:4; Psalms 135:7; Psalms 144:6; Jeremiah 10:13; Jeremiah 51:16; Ezekiel 1:13; Ezekiel 21:10; Ezekiel 21:15; Ezekiel 21:28; Daniel 10:6; Nahum 2:4; Nahum 3:3; Habakkuk 3:11; Zechariah 9:14

The short answer is: no.

Simply put; it is impossible for God to lie according to Hebrews 6:18 and deliberate deception surely falls into that category.

That said, I do agree with you that the earth is, in all likelihood, far older than 10,000 years and animals did probably live and die long before the Genesis account of creation.

I hold to a modified version of the gap theory and have no problems with long time frames or the notion of micro-evolution or change within a species.

However, when it comes to humans, we are told that mankind began with a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus himself also confirms that life began with a literal Adam and Eve in the New Testament, and if he was mistaken then we have much bigger problems (of the theological nature) to deal with.

I wholly agree that there is much we don’t know. But there are things we do know (especially things that have been revealed to us by an omniscient being) and we should strive to keep our beliefs between the lines (so to speak) of what has been clearly revealed. Speculation on the rest (like why God created the mosquito) is all well and good.

However, since science has been proven faulty far more than God has (not that the two are inherently at odds) so I suggest that a wise approach would be to not allow our scientific findings to color our theology. Mostly because it generally leads to the unfortunate consequence of revising our theology every time scientists change their minds/interpretations.

1. As far as I can tell anyway.

“Do you affirm that unity is not to come at the expense of truth?”

I think this is a red herring as people can disagree on various theological points and still remain united by their commitment to Christ. Further, I find the very question here to be an implicit concession of my point above regarding the Calvinist tendency to treat the ideological position as of primary importance (something, I might add, which is also carried over into too many Churches) rather than our common commitment to Christ.

In other words, you are not a sum of your ideas and your value is not derived by adding up all of your ideas and subtracting the bad ones.

Our commitment to Christ and each other IN Christ is not predicated on our possession of right doctrine.

“Do you affirm that we can disagree and yet have unity?”

Are you asking if we can disagree and still remained united in our commitment to Christ? If so the sure, I don’t see why not. That is, as long as you DO place your commitment to our common Lord and Saviour as of primary importance.

Before you stroke out at my above statements or attempt to reply with the oft-used but seldom-understood refrain of “postmodernist!” let me hasten to add that I’m not saying that objective truth doesn’t exist or matter or that we ought not to vigorously state and defend our respective theologies.

All I’m saying is that past the very basic confessional creed laid out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (also captured in the ΙΧΘΥΣ acrostic) we have no reason to attempt and throw others out of a body and bride that is not our own.

In regard to camps, I try very hard not to have one so I find your question regarding “my camp” to be pretty spurious at best. If you are asking if there are non-calvinists who have acted poorly, then my answer would have to be yes. Even I have failed to attain to the ideal of unity Christ commanded us to uphold. However the beauty of the Christian message is redemption so my continued hope (no matter how dismal or unattainable it may seem at times) is that we would stop stabbing each other in the back (which includes trying to throw each other out of the Body of Christ) and work towards what Jesus told us would be a sign to the nations that He was sent into the world (what Schaeffer called “the final apologetic”).

In our search for unity, we need to give up the common refrain of “well you are coming from a philosophical position whereas I am coming from a _Biblical_ position” argument. If we can agree to forgo such infantile arguments or lines of thought then, and only then, will our conversations and debates become more fruitful than a mud slinging competition.

What if our culture’s assumption that “freely chosen relationships” is not true?

We’ve long held in our culture that arranged marriages are inherently evil for depriving couples of the freedom to choose their (supposedly) life-long mates. However, what if we discovered that instead of love being diminished by the removal of the prospective spouses’ free choice of whom to wed, we discovered that love is actually increased?

Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? But a recent article discussing the failings of how our criteria of freely choosing mates based purely on our chemical highs (which we mistakenly label “love”) has some very interesting tidbits, including:

Imagine a dating world turned on its head, in which people were not given the freedom to opt into or out of a relationship — such as a culture that practices arranged marriages. What researchers have found will be shocking to Westerners weaned on the idea of romantic love.

According to a 1982 study by two Indian researchers, the level of self-reported love in arranged marriages increased over time until they surpassed the level of self-reported love in marriages that were freely chosen. Incredible as it sounds, people with a very limited say in choosing their own spouses eventually became happier with their relationships than people with the freedom to choose anyone they wanted.

This really shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially Christians, since marriage ought to serve as institutional guide-rails for fledgling relationships. Offering clearly defined roles for both spouses along with clear standards of what is and is not acceptable. Meaning infidelity is scorned and unconditional love is praised among other traits.

I only hope I can get these ideas across to my children before they reach the age they decide to start dating…

I am curious to know why the GLBT community thinks this is immoral and not fair that the citizens of California voted overwhelmingly to include specific language (12 words to be precise) into their state’s constitution which concretely defines marriage to be between a man and a woman.

I wonder where they derive their ethical standards for fairness and morality.

I can easily see where the civil rights movement grounded their campaign that all men are created equal specifically in a Christian world view. Essentially, they believed (rightly in my opinion) that there was a natural law that superseded the government’s laws. This case in CA, and the stubborn refusal to accept defeat by the GLBT community, raises a very precarious question; Where do they ground their objections and why are we morally obligated to obey such a standard?

However I fail to see how members of the GLBT community are being devalued as human beings for being denied the imaginary “right” they never had¹. I also fail to see where diversity (in the strict sense of accepting all human beings as equal in value) is challenged by refusing to accept all practices and lifestyles.

For excellent coverage on the whole proposition 8 fiasco, I highly recommend the podcasts from The Ruth Institute by Jennifer Roeback Morse. Also, here’s a great overview post by Wintry Knight.

1. Actually, they do have the right to marry. Same as you and I do. What they are upset about is not being afforded special privileges that no one currently has. The whole mantra of “equality” falls flat on it’s face when you consider what is really being demanded by the GLBT community.

Over the years the question of gun ownership by Christians comes up. I hear many sincere believers make the following statement “A real Christian wouldn’t own a gun. They would trust God to protect them”.

Does owning a firearm for protection or defense mean I don’t trust God to protect me or mean I am in sin?

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3

It’s certainly better if the person who meant to cause you harm were to live, recognize the error of their ways, repent, and be reconciled both to you and to society. However, I think the above passage in Exodus makes it fairly plain that we are permitted to defend ourselves if our lives or the lives of those we love are in imminent danger.

As for why Jesus told Peter to sell his cloak and buy a sword in Luke 22:35-38.. backtracking to verse 31 we see that Jesus warned Peter against Satan’s desire to “sift you as wheat”. Going back again to verse 29 we see that Jesus commissioned his disciples as stewards of his kingdom (which is not of this world per John 18:36) which leads me to believe that Jesus’s statement to Peter about buying a sword has to do with the defense of the kingdom he was recently put in charge of.

So Peter was (and, by extension us as well as citizens of this kingdom), in essence, put in charge of guarding God’s house much in the same way we are told to be on guard against anyone who would break in and steal, kill and destroy (John 10:10).

Are Christians permitted to own firearms and use them in self-defense? Absolutely! Not only are we permitted to use them in self-defense but we’ve been given weapons that are not of this world (2 Corinthians 10:4) which are more potent than any firearm for the express purpose of waging war on satan and his army.

The path Alyosha chose was a path going in the opposite direction, but he chose it with the same thirst for swift achievement. As soon as he reflected seriously he was convinced of the existence of God and immortality, and at once he instinctively said to himself: “I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise.” In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth. Alyosha would have found it strange and impossible to go on living as before. It is written: “Give all that thou hast to the poor and follow Me, if thou wouldst be perfect.”

Read the whole chapter here.