Without a Complicated Interpretation? - Dean Taylor - Ep. 167
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- Does communion involve the literal body of Jesus? Does baptism save us? Dean Taylor addresses listener comments regarding baptism and the Lord’s supper. These questions were responses to Dean’s episode “The Essence of Anabaptism” in which he emphasized believing scripture “without a complicated interpretation.” Some viewers argued that doesn’t fit with Anabaptist views of communion and baptism. You can view these and other comments, as well as the original episode on TH-cam. • The Essence of Anabapt...
This is the 167th episode of Anabaptist Perspectives, a podcast, blog, and TH-cam channel that examines various aspects of conservative Anabaptist life and thought.
Listen to our episodes on our podcast: www.anabaptist...
Read essays on our blog: www.anabaptist...
Listen to the essays as a podcast: essays-for-kin...
Connect with us on Facebook: / anabaptistperspectives
Support us: www.anabaptist...
About Us: www.anabaptist...
The views expressed by our guests are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Anabaptist Perspectives or Wellspring Mennonite Church.
I’m not an Anabaptist, but Conrad Grebel’s line here has become a motto of my channel.
This is great! I need to go back and listen to that first episode again! Good work, guys!
Thanks Chris! Good to hear from you. We should hang out again sometime. :)
Thank you, Chris.
@@ReaganSchrock yessir!
Thanks for your work in putting these and other videos together. My wife and I love them!
Glad you find them useful!
Thanks for your encouraging words!
This was a great episode. Some things, like what happens during communion cannot easily be defined and quantified. The "this is my body" I would interpret to mean that we are remembering that Jesus willingly sacrificed his body for every person. Remembering the incredible sacrifice and love should bring a reverent and thankful attitude to everyone.
Very good talk, just curious where I might find the video that Dean was referring to where he goes into the subject more in-depth?
Hi Peter. We don't know for certain which other video Dean referred to, but my best guess is that it's this one: th-cam.com/video/DcnIA_NDafY/w-d-xo.html
Alternatively, find all the episodes that Dean has recorded with us here: anabaptistperspectives.org/people/dean-taylor/
Excellent discussion. My own resolution to the conflicting positions on Eucharist has been to simply say, “Christ is uniquely present in the breaking of bread.” Transubstantiation seems too technical and memorial meal, too limiting. As well, saying “uniquely present” takes it beyond the expression one might utter in how a person may experience God in a beautiful sunset or some other act of nature. I believe this takes seriously the simple words of Jesus, “This is my body,” without coming to a reductionist view, a limited view, or merely one other way to experience the presence of Jesus. The phrase, “breaking of bread” emphasizes the action of the gathered believers. Eucharist is not a private act. It is the work of the community, and this not only in the gathering, but in the sending forth, i.e. how we live out our faith day to day. (The Catholic term, “Mass,” the service where Eucharist is celebrated, is related to the word mission, a sending forth, recognizing that Eucharist cannot be separated from all of life, and life can not be separated from Eucharist.)Thus Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11; he was stressing the failure to live out the faith in their daily lives; put more more directly, the injustice present in the Body of Christ, some in their congregation living in wealth while others experienced poverty. Not seeing and honoring Jesus in their fellow believers, they could not realize Jesus, make him known, in the Eucharist. - I would be interested in your thoughts. Thank you for your ministry.
I really like your phrase and explanation of it: "uniquely present in the breaking of bread" -- Marlin
Healthy food 😍😍😍😍 Thank you for your information, God bless you. 🇦🇫
Thank you, Luke.
@AnabaptistPerspectives I have a question. I see that baptism saves, but what about people on their deatbhed, or Chridtians like John Newton who never were bsptized as believing adults? Im honestly trying to figure all this out. What if someone beleivee, repents, and is bsptized, but thinks baptism is just a symbol? Does it count? Thank you!!!
Do you think the Creator of this Universe can't figure out if someone performed a few rituals properly that man documented in some book? He created the entire universe and all that exists. God cannot be fooled. Trust Him. Trust HIM.
Which Anabaptist groups still recognize baptism as the faith appeal to God for forgiveness of sin like the early church unanimously taught? What is the name of that group called if I were to search for them and find them?
Can you explain further your view on the Eucharist/Communion? From my understanding of Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, and John 6:1-69, I would be under more of a memorial understanding (or remembrance as ESV puts it).
In John 6, Jesus feeds 5,000 people with bread. Later, they find him again, wanting more. He explains that there is a better kind of bread that gives eternal life, and that He Himself is that bread of life. He tells people to come to Him and believe in Him to have eternal life throughout this chapter, using the analogy of Himself as bread that would feed their hunger. He uses similar imagery in John 10, when He talks about Himself being the door. I believe the simple reading of the text shows Jesus using bread as an analogy in this Chapter, and that He later expanded that analogy in the Last Supper with His disciples.
1 Corinthians 11:26 tells us that as we continue to participate in Communion, we are proclaiming the Lords death until He comes. We are not eating the Lords actual body, but participating in a memorial of what Jesus has done for us, in giving His body to be broken for us, and His blood to be spilled for us. As we participate in Communion with the body of Christ (fellow believers, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17), there is certainly the Presence of God with us and in us, but I don’t see that the actual bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Jesus.
Just as a TPR (total physical response) can be helpful in learning languages, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a physical way of remembering Jesus sacrifice and humility that has given us salvation through faith in Him.
Perhaps there is some mystery that I’m missing, but I would like to understand your view better.
What do you mean when you say that you believe Communion is between the memorial view and the transubstantiation view?
Marlin here, and speaking for myself not necessarily Dean. The bread and cup is clearly done in remembrance and I do not believe the bread and cup are literally the body and blood of the Lord. My concern would be that we miss a lot if we feel the need to add "only" to that statement and say it is "only a memorial." And then if that is furthered paired with the language of ordinance (which you didn't use here), the view of the bread and cup can start to feel pretty thin. "This is an object lesson that Jesus commanded us to perform occasionally." I am not saying that your comments reflect a view that is that thin, but rather that the danger of "memorial only" talk is that it can leave that impression. You use the word "communion" and that itself I think is something more than simply an object lesson. "Communion" is applied to the bread and cup in 1 Corinthians 10, as the term used in some English translations for the Greek "koinonia." The ESV uses "participation" in that passage, and the most common rendering in the NT is "fellowship." The communion is between the participant and Jesus who is the host of the table. Yes, we are participating with other believers who are sharing the Lord's table, but the key point in chapter 10 is that we are participating with the Lord and should not participate with idols. So for me, a key implication is that the loaf and cup are not only remembering Jesus but actually interacting with Jesus in some way. And no it is not literal and mechanical, as can be seen by comparison with what Paul says about meat sacrificed to idols in that same passage. So it is remembrance, but it is also relationship. As a pastor said at our last communion service, we physically receive the emblems from men, but it is Jesus who offers them. It is a covenant ceremony. As far as the particular angle of 1 Corinthians 10, I wrested with that in this essay: anabaptistperspectives.org/essays/the-lords-supper-as-fellowship/
@@AnabaptistPerspectives Thanks for your reply. That helps to explain your view. I especially appreciate you saying, "...it is a remembrance, but it is also relationship."
Communion is a remembering of what Jesus did on the cross, but it is also part of an ongoing relationship with Christ that we get to be a part of, through faith.
The funny thing about believing in him at that time as the savior, was that he had not even yet died or become the sacrifice to save man. Truly an interesting thought. But Jesus didn't write these gospels. Men did. Jesus didn't pen a single letter.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives Dean used to believe in transubstantiation I know this for a FACT. I was with him in those days. Dean's response would be appropriate here. He took me from Baptist to Catholic. FACT.
You’re right that at that time Jesus had not yet died and risen again. People before He died and rose again were putting their faith in a Messiah to come, and Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be that Messiah.
I was in that office this morning. Got a great view but looks a little different now
Yup. We also enjoyed the view from Sattler when we visited to film some episodes a few years ago.
A refutation of the Roman and Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence vis reasoning from the Scriptures:
Christ’s physical body is not in multiple places at once - “He is not here (Jesus’ body is not in multiple places): for he is risen” (Matthew 28:16); “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart (depart means to go away, which assumes his body will not be here), I will send him unto you.” (John 16:7); “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven (if his body is in multiple places at once, how does it even make sense to speak of his body being taken into heaven?) shall so come in like manner (physically) as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11); “And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive UNTIL (his body will be in heaven UNTIL not come back every Sunday in communion before) the times of restitution of all things” (Acts 3:20-21); “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again (come again one more time, not come again and again and again over 2000 years during communion), and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:3). “For if he were on earth (Jesus’ body is not presently on earth), he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:” (Hebrews 8:4).
“Is” does not have to be taken in a wooden literal sense and can be symbolic - “For who is God save the LORD? or who IS a rock save our God?” (Psalm 18:31- God is not a piece of granite); “The name of the LORD IS a strong tower:” (Proverbs 18:10- The name of the Lord is not a literal castle); “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same IS my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50 - Christians are not the literal biological/physical brothers, sisters, and mother of Jesus). Earthly Analogy - If I take out a picture of my family from my wallet and say, “This is my family,” I do not intend, nor would anyone on earth misunderstand my words to suggest that the actual photo paper itself is my family. What would be understood is that the picture is a representation of my family.
That said, I do believe, contra the mere memorial view, there is a true spiritual communion/fellowship/participation with the body and blood of Christ in the Supper through faith:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16).
Also, the Supper, contra modern Anabaptist practice, took place on a weekly basis: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,..." Acts 20:7. The breaking of bread was a euphemism for taking of the Lord's Supper- Acts 2:42
What did the Early Christians believe about this? The same one's that canonized the new testament by the time of the Council of Nicea? Who taught those early Christians? The text out of context with the reality is a falsehood. Jesus did not write the New Testament. He did not pen a single letter. He left his Church only. Like it or not. Study how the NT was canonized if you want what really happened. All else is just not true. Some people do not want that truth.
Dean Taylor, it seems to me that a lot of this talk of believer's baptism does not solve the issue we bump into from first generation believers to their children. For example, it is well know in Hutterite communities the young people get baptized around the age of 20 and it is more of a tradition thing, if they want status in the Hutterite community they get baptized even if they don't possess true faith in Jesus Christ. Isn't this the same type of problem we see in Protestant churches where they baptize babies who grow up and deny the faith? I think in practice paedo baptism and credo baptism both types of churches will have trouble with baptizing unbelievers into the visible body of the church, and that's actually to be expected because Jesus warns us there will be weeds among the wheat until He comes back and sorts them out. So to me, it almost doesn't matter from a visible church perspective when one gets baptized, what matters is that they are born of the Spirit and show the fruits of the Spirit in their life. Also, church discipline is critical in keeping the local church somewhat a church dominated by the sheep of Christ instead of the goats being the majority and gaining control of the eldership positions.
I appreciate the speakers taking the time to respond to Lutheran and Catholic views on the sacraments, but they should really study up in the topic before saying anything further. Lutherans DO NOT teach consubstantiation. Not to be rude, but that’s only something that people who haven’t really studied the Lutheran position say. It really is a marker of ignorance on the topic.
I really want to encourage you all to read actual Lutheran books on the topic before making your next video on the sacraments. I would suggest reading Edmond Schlink’s book, “The Doctrine Of Baptism” before trying to address where Lutherans get things incorrect. It’s a very good overview of the Lutheran understanding of baptism.
Hello, my wife and I have been getting to know a local Menonite Community and have been seeking to understand what to keep, and what to critique (for edification).
One question that has come up, is how much ought we to separate ourselves from the world? The example of this, is that many have restricted internet. Whereby they do not have access to the things going on. Or even having access to these videos, where they say it would be regressing in faith to watch them.
We also wonder about divorce, and remarriage, as the early church seems to be pretty clear that it ought not to happen. Especially remarriage for a woman. Many of them did not know how to handle this situation. Her husband cheated, and was abusive in many ways.. and she has found someone that she can be evenly yoked with, and shares the faith. I just find it hard to think that they ought not get married, when it seems our Father has ordained it by circumstance. Yet I cannot find clear scripture, or historical basis for why.. except for speculation.
Many thanks and blessings for these lectures, it has helped my wife and I in our path of understanding his ways and I cannot imagine we are alone.
You can't get remarried
I am a single mother, my husband cheated on me and divorced me against my will. I can tell you, I am commited to staying single the rest of my life and continue to pray for the repentance of my ex husband. In fact if he truly repents and comes back to the church, I would remarry him. Let me put it this way: Jesus is in union with us believers, and says He will never forsake us. Our marriages as christians need to portray that love Christ has for His church. Our lives are a living sacrifice for Christ, we are not here to live for our pleasures. As long as the spouse is still alive, we need to remain faithful as a testimony to the rest of the world that Jesus never leaves us nor forsakes us. If you remarry while the ex is still alive, you're simply speaking lies about Christ's love for His church, you're preaching a different kind of gospel with your life. That's how I see it, I'm not even Anabaptist, but I'm a calvinist, so most people in my circles do not agree with my view but respect my personal take on this.
@@christianmama2441 What if your first relationship was when you were in the world, before you were reborn. Indeed, it's a respectable choice.. but, is it universal and in all cases?
Is there zero opportunity for even this, being once dead and now alive.. to be a loophole on a sort of way.
Rehab was a prostitute. Were all here previous relations held against her, or previous life as a whole?
Or did Jesus ultimately come from her line of children?
I just know how marriage in a worldly sense can be confused. The Corporate, Worldly thing vs the Authentic thing-
Same goes with things like Baptism. Being a Calvinist though I don't think we will see eye to eye on this on philosophic grounds. Or the Church for that matter..
@@ezrajeremiah8631 If your first marriage happened while you're an unbeliever, in no way does that give you freedom to remarry to another while the first spouse is alive. As far as I can tell marriage is given by God to the entire human race since Adam and Eve, regardless of believer or unbeliever status. In fact Paul advises those believers who are unequally yoked with an unbeliever not to divorce but to stay married if the unbeliever does not leave them. Let me remind you the very words of Jesus on this matter, Mark 10:8 "and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
And let me remind you that John the Baptist lost his head because he called Herod's marriage to his brother's wife, adultery. Jesus Himself calls a remarriage with a divorced one to be adultery, why? because the first marriage is binding until death parts them. Luke 16: 18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Please understand here that Jesus means every word He said, if you're divorced and marry another person other than the first spouse, you're committing adultery. Now adultery can be forgiven and I'm in favor of someone remarried like that to continue in that marriage that started out as adultery, because God can redeem even that kind of a marriage if there is genuine repentance, (think of David and Batsheba's marriage that came in the aftermath of adultery and murder, yet God allowed Batsheba to be one of the ancestors of Christ, God CAN redeem the worst of relationships.) Now, I'm just a woman, don't take my words for it, read the Scriptures yourself and ask your elders, don't listen to women, listen to Jesus and His ministers instead, this is just my conviction and understanding of Scripture.
@@christianmama2441 No, I appreciate the nuance you had clarified. I also and agree with these things as ideals to strive for and promote.
The forgiveness part is the key there I was looking for- and I understand that this does not give people a pass or anything to do what they freely like.
Dean, you seem to have the same view of communion as the Reformed view (calvinists). I would know because I am one of those rare calvinists who also believe in non resistance. If someone can just take the doctrines of grace of calvinism and marry them with the Anabaptist non resistance and separation of church and state, it would be quite something. Calvin himself had no objections to Anabaptist understanding of communion, a middle ground between memorial and transubstanciation is exactly what I believe as a calvinist.
Thanks for sharing.
1 Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Anabaptist is misspelled in the thumbnail.
I'd like to get it fixed, but I'm struggling to see the problem...
Where did we get it wrong?
A refutation of infant baptism:
The verses in the New Testament below assume conscious faith and repentance, a good conscience, and only men and women in the New Testament are explicitly mentioned as being baptized. “But what about household baptisms?” That assumes all households mentioned in the Bible had babies, which is a huge assumption. All babies are in households, but not all households have babies. Someone may say “Babies can have faith; it says John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb, so he had faith!” John the Baptist had a special ministry as the forerunner of Christ, so this is no basis by which a universal inference to infant baptism can be made. In fact, John demanded adults who had received infant circumcision be baptized as adults and nowhere did he ever baptize an infant! In addition, although Samuel was circumcised as a baby and his mother had faith, 1 Samuel 3:7 states, “Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.” Samuel did not have faith as a circumcised baby, and he would later end up being a great prophet! Thus, babies are not born again in their infant baptism, but must exercise conscious faith in the Lord Jesus Christ’s and His finished work. As Jesus told a religious man who was circumcised as a baby, “you must be born again” (John 3:7).
“Repent, and be baptized” (Acts 2:38); “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:” (Acts 2:41); “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12); “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” (Mark 16:16), “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:47), “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (1 Peter 3:21)
Hello brother. How come you have not made any videos in two years?
There are some issues that I think need to be clarified on this baptism on confession concept. The Bible says we are born in sin; none are righteous. Yet I have heard time and again say that children are innocent. Which is it? I have seen many young people struggle under very vocal preaching that they will end up in hell if they don't make a choice for Jesus Christ. They have been told they are innocent, yet supposedly facing hell fire. What a situation to be in! No wonder so many drift away!
We say infant baptism is forcing faith on a child who is too young to understand, yet when they are born into our homes, we love them (they can't choose that and don't understand it), we give them a name (they don't get that either), so is God not powerful enough to reveal himself to a child in an age-appropriate way? I was baptized at three weeks of age and there has never been a moment in my life where I felt God was not guiding me. Think of it this way: would you plant a garden and expect a good crop without first tilling and opening up the soil, feeding it and caring for it? I am so glad my parents did not make me wait to experience the Holy Spirit in my life; it is God's work, not mine.
@@ruthgoebel723 - You present a false dilemma by being guilty of the either-or fallacy. Children are born with a sin nature but are innocent of actual sin (unlike you and me). It's sad you are not more familiar with Scripture otherwise you wouldn't have made these comments.
1) "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17. If a child has not developed moral reasoning, they are not held liable.
2) Yes, young people need to hear they need to repent and believe just like the Jewish adults who were circumcised as babies needed to hear that under John and Jesus' preaching.
3) Look at Samuel 3:7- "Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him." Baby circumcized Samuel did not know God until God had personally revealed himself to him.
4) Look at all of the vast numbers of hypocrites who were baby sprinkled - Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans- I have known many who get drunk, fornicate, take God's name, etc etc., yet will affirm they were converted in their baptism. No wonder so many end up in hell- like unfaithful Israelites, they depend on ritual instead of having saving faith.
5) Look at how many true believers were put to death by the baby sprinkling Whore of Rome/Babylon not to mention how the Magisterial Reformers also persecuted those who accepted New Testament Baptism
6) I am so glad God opened my eyes to the false practice of infant baptism that I was subjected to as a baby and when I became actually born again as Christ requires for salvation, I saw the NT pattern of faith/repentance preceding baptism.
Good stuff brother Dean, doing sacraments (holy ordinances) like baptizing children who don't make their own decision, is doing them without faith.
Moreover, Jesus, the one who calls the shots, commanded his 11 apostles
1. Go make disciples (students)
2. Baptize these
3. Teach the baptized students to practice everything that Jesus commanded the 11.
Hence, children are disqualified until they can do all that Jesus demands from a disciple e.g. abandon all possessions, hate parents and their own lives, deny self daily... children don't understand self-denial? Say what? Leave this dirty diaper on myself? Baaaahhhhwww waaahhh...
Go without my bottle? What? Is you crazy?
....you get the point.
Adults can conduct self government... teenagers begin to learn it and mature faster if good teachers exist (parents).
Justin Martyr 150 AD in First Apology used Greek word about the Eucharist (good thanks) rightly translated as Trans-mutation, i.e. he did not explain when or in what way some change happens, nor what changes that I see. My supposition is that at the last trumpet, all who are faithful workers and eaters of the body of Jesus will be changed... in an instant, to become like Christ as 1 John 3:2 says and Peter in his epistle about us taking on the "divine nature" and as Paul where Christ the groom is joined as one flesh with the church, i.e. virgins with oil in their lamps
This is the Transmutation.
I see no examples in the NT nor in the Ante Nicene Fathers in volumes 1 and 2, of Christians giving worship to the Eucharist cup nor bread.. no bowing nor praying nor homage of any sort; just eating and drinking it after prayer. If this Catholic practice were Apostolic and true, either the Didache which is a manual intended to establish church practices or the First Apology of Justin Martyr would show them praying or bowing to it or something.
@@jesusstudentbrett Amen brother Brett
But as a calvinist, I got a problem with the idea that you as a minister can discern for sure who has and who doesn't have genuine faith in Jesus to accept people for baptism. In both cases, infant baptism and adult baptism, there will be a certain number of unbelievers baptized because only God knows for sure who have faith and who don't, so from a practical aspect of the visible church, it almost does not matter when people get baptized, what matters far more than this, is if discipleship and church discipline are practiced. Shepherds keeping watch over the members of the church is far, far more important than WHEN a person gets baptized. Baptism, among other things, is a visible sign of entry into the visible local church. Also, faith is a gift from God, so it is not like you can obtain it of your own will.
Scripture isn't hard to understand