The following is an extract of a letter written by Bryce Geiser, of Caneyville Christian Community near Caneyville, KY. It especially brings to contrast the difference between an Anabaptist soteriology and the typical Evangelical soteriology. Bryce writes:

In mid-October we received an invitation to engage in a discussion with a senior’s group at the St. Thomas Catholic Church.  They wanted us to explain the differences between our faith, (Anabaptism), and theirs.  We responded positively, perhaps a bit eagerly.

I gave it very little thought as the day approached. After all, this was likely going to be a meeting with  a few old ladies, and how deep can you get in a setting like that?  When we pulled into their parking lot, however, I was surprised by the number of cars already there.  Was this, perhaps, a bigger thing than I had expected?  I regretted not taking the time to be more prepared, but I was in good company since Aaron, Andrew, Jonathan, David and our wives were all along.  We bravely marched into the St. Thomas Church basement,– suspenders, coverings and all.

We were received warmly enough.   After a potluck dinner, the  priest, Brian Johnson, gave Jonathan the responsibility of organizing the topics and speakers.

Jonathan gave a brief history of Anabaptism in Europe, and their “coming out” of the Catholic church.  I could not see any reaction on the faces of our Catholic hosts–only friendly curiosity.  I suspect there is not much history about the Catholic church that would surprise any of them, nor do they feel any real attachment to the Catholic church of 500 years ago. But then, what did I expect?  Would I?

Aaron followed with a brief explanation of how Caneyville came to be, and why we are not exactly Amish, Mennonite, or German Baptist.  When asked if there were any people in the room who had ever considered joining the Amish, the response was sort of feeble.  Undazed, Aaron went on to explain that many of their fellow Americans do, in fact, want to join the Amish.  He explained the hurdles those people face, and why there have sprung up across the country small communities like ours who seek to remove unscriptural hurdles and yet maintain the strong community structure of a believer’s church.

Jonathan had me give a summary of doctrinal differences.  I tried to explain that Anabaptists take the words of Jesus very seriously and, if at all possible, literally.  Besides the obvious difference of believer’s baptism, we Anabaptists also try to live the sermon on the mount; not swearing, not resisting evil, and so on.  I also tried to note the places we actually agree with Catholics, without getting too ecumenical about it.  Looking around th room at the 50 or more people who were there did not make me want to talk much about our common ground.

Finally, Andrew fielded and answered questions from the group.  They had plenty of them, but once again it seemed to be only friendly curiosity–nothing critical or accusatory.  We might easily have imagined that we were at a luncheon with the Grayson County Historical society.

A few days later, we did a 180 degree u-turn and went to Carrolton, Kentucky, to a gathering of plain or ex-plain people sponsored by Michael Pearl.

Michael began the 3-day session by telling us that he had spent many hours in the plain church meetings, “stinking, hot, and seemingly endless”, being bored to death by our preachers.  Now it was his turn, and he intended to get revenge.  He gave us a  schedule of 7 meetings totaling around 15 hours of preaching.

Could Michael do it?  Indeed he could.  He could hardly stop talking when the time was up.  And what did he talk about?

Well, Michael is as close to a modern-day Martin Luther as you can get.  We spent hours going through Romans and the  Protestant “faith alone” doctrine, but we were never bored.  Mike is an entertaining speaker with clear and firm gasp of his subject.  We liked him.

I was glad for the chance to spend most of three days trying to understand Protestant theology.  I was surprised at how little I disagreed with the actual words he preached, and yet how vehemently I disagreed with his summaries and conclusions.  Perhaps our greatest disagreement was the way we approached the New Testament.  Michael wanted us to skip past the 4 gospels,–(“that’s Old Testament stuff”), and start at God’s premier book to the non-Jewish people, the book of Romans.  Romans was, for Michael, the window through which he saw the rest of the Bible.  Romans was, in fact, the Gospel.

In sharp contrast, for us Anabaptists the teachings of Jesus and his announcements of the Kingdom is the actual Gospel.  We see the gospel as the “turning upside-down” of our lives and inviting us to participate in the kingdom struggle.  We read Jesus’ accounts of end-time judgment and believe it to be a  judgment of fruits and works, not theology.

Michael doesn’t agree. Our salvation is based on grace, through faith alone and not of works.  Period.  All that stuff about not swearing, not resisting evil people, doing violence to no man, and so forth, belong to a works-based salvation.

By the end of 3 days, it was clear to me that Martin Luther had distorted the gospel message and robbed it of its fruitfulness.  Not so much by the exact things being said, but by an overall imbalance of Scripture and a gross misunderstanding of what the Gospel message was.

I watched for my chance to question Michael in a non-threatening setting between meetings.  Finally, on the last day, I found him outside all alone.

“How is is,” I asked, “that there can be absolutely no works in salvation when the Bible includes such things as “calling upon the name of the Lord: to be saved? Even simple belief itself is called a ‘work’ by Jesus in John 6:28b,29 “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”  My brain, my mouth, my ‘giving up’–are they not the works of my organic body?”

Michael is never stumped.  “Those are what we call non-meritorious works”, he said.  “That’s not what we mean, not what Romans means when it speaks of works.”

Oh.  Maybe we aren’t so far apart as our etymology suggests.  If we could find different words, would our worlds draw closer?  But then I think of the crisp advice given by John: “Little children, let no one deceive you.  He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.”

Catholics and Protestants.  Are they opposites?  In many ways, they seem more similar to each other than to the Anabaptists, though they would probably cringe to hear me say it.  And yet, in widely different ways, each of them has adopted a way of believing the Bible which ultimately becomes friendship with the world and its values.  The Way of the Cross, so central to Anabaptist theology, does not dominate their doctrine and thus does not cramp their lifestyle either.

And yet, in my more humble moments, I have to confess that we were treated kindly and graciously in both settings.  I want to learn from this, and return grace and kindness to those with whom I disagree, even strongly.

A young converted shoemaker turned Anabaptist missionary and pastor, Peter Riedemann seemed to have lived tirelessly in sharing and living his faith. Traversing literally thousands of miles, writing songs and letters, visiting churches, working as a pastor, and publishing books, he helped shape the early days of the Anabaptist movement. Besides his pastoral letters and a few songs written from prison, Peter Riedemann is remembered today because of two books that he wrote while in prison. Both of his books are works explaining the faith of the early Anabaptist movement to outsiders. His first book, written from prison in Gmunden, Austria, is published today under the title “Love is Like Fire.” His second and most significant, written from prison from the little German town of Wolkersdorf, is published simply under the title “Confession of Faith,” or an older publishing under the more denominational sounding title, “Peter Riedemann’s Hutterite Confession of Faith.” Historically, Peter Riedemann is also known for being (next to Jacob Hutter) as the second founder of the Moravian/Tyrolean Anabaptists, which later became known as the Hutterian Brethren. Perhaps because Riedemann was a labeled a Hutterite instead of a Mennonite, he and his works remained virtually unknown to the English-speaking world until 1950.

A positive statement

Right from the first chapter of any of his books one quickly senses a different tone than that of many of the other early Anabaptist writers. With many of the others, I often feel that one thing lacking is a more positive expression of their faith. Written on the run, defending themselves against a false accusation, or having to scratch out a few lines through the terrible conditions of dungeon life made many of the Anabaptist writings come off as defensive or polemic. Having the luxury for careful editing or even the chance to make meaningful analogies to express their heart in a devotional style was uncommon in the early days of the Anabaptist movement. It is here that Peter Riedemann shines most. Riedemann was a very spiritual, expressive, and passionate writer. A longing for Christ and total dependence on the Holy Spirit flows through every page. Riedemann captured the devotional style. He comes off more like an Andrew Murray than a Menno Simons.

Riedemann started to write his first book in 1529 while imprisoned in Gmunden, Germany. He finished it approximately in the year 1532 shortly before he escaped from that prison. During his early years, Riedemann had fellowshipped and studied with some of the most gifted Anabaptist leaders of his day. After his escape from prison, he threw his lot in with the newly-forming Hutterian Brethren in Moravia. The brethren quickly recognized his gifts, and the next year they sent Riedemann out as a missionary, in 1533. In that same year he was again captured and put into prison until 1537, this time in the town of Nuremberg. After his release he traveled as a missionary and did pastoral work until he once again landed in prison around the year 1540, where he wrote his second book.

While in prison, Riedemann took advantage of a few privileges that other Anabaptist prisoners never had. While it is true that his books were written from a castle dungeon, as far as dungeon-life in the 1500s went Riedemann had it better that most. The Protestant ruler of this area, Philip of Hess, did not allow the Anabaptists of his region to be executed. So while Riedemann was imprisoned he was allowed some privileges—like writing. Many scholars think that these “Confessions of Faith” were actually written in answers to questions that Phillip of Hess had personally asked him.

Orthodoxy

One of the most obvious things you quickly notice about “Confessions of Faith” is that he presents the faith following the lines of the ancient Apostles’ Creed. Some have suggested that he did this to prove the orthodoxy of the Anabaptists to Philip of Hess … who knows? Whatever his motive, the beauty of this approach was that it presents the early Anabaptist faith based on one thing—their understanding of God. Just as A. W. Tozer said over 400 years later in the opening line of The Knowledge of the Holy, “what comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us,” Riedemann’s theology flows from his view of God Himself. However, flowing from this creedal approach, Riedemann rescues the Apostles’ Creed from a mere head knowledge by insisting that this ancient faith must effect our life—or it is vain. As he wrote, “no one may truthfully ascribe such glory and honor to Christ unless he has experienced this victory in himself.”[1]

Clear salvation

Read the rest of this entry »

Not too long ago a “Christian” lady in Mexico gave the following explanation of how she was going to be saved:

“I know I’m a vile sinner, and when I get to the gate of glory, God is going to read down over the long list of my sins, and look up and say, “Is this you?” And I with shame will respond, “Yes.” But in that very moment Jesus is going to come on the scene and say, “But Father, remember that I died for her?” And right there my list will be erased and I will be let in to glory.

Sorry, Ma’am, but if that is how you plan to be saved, you will be sorely disappointed. Every  judgment scene presented to us in the New Testament tells us that our works that we have done will determine whether we enter heaven. You will be asked no questions. When you breathe your last breath, your destiny is sealed.

And your works will determine your final destination. So we had all better turn from evil works to good works through faith in Jesus.

If any0ne can show me where the Bible teaches otherwise, please send me the references.

Consider it well – your destiny is at stake.

A family friend was travelling with his mobile home in another state. Night came upon him, and he stopped in a town along the way to ask a local person if they knew of a quiet, secure place close by where he might park and sleep for the night. “Sure,” replied the helpful man, and proceeded to give him some simple directions to a place not too far away.

Faithfully following the details, our friend made the correct turns and finally dead-ended … right in the local cemetery! He never found out how hard the man giving the directions had laughed after he had pulled away.

Have you ever followed directions, only to end up where you didn’t want to be? Or found out later that your map or GPS deceived you, taking you the “the long way around,” or perhaps to the wrong destination? It wasn’t that you didn’t follow the directions well, the map or GPS was simply wrong!

I appreciate bypasses. Most of them anyways, like when I am in a hurry to get to the other side of town. But a recent discovery has led me to realize that a well-known map used by many travelers is in error, and is leading men and women down streets and into a final end where they were never intended to end up at. This map is so well known and highly valued, that it seems no one even questions its authority. It is the so-called “Romans Road to Salvation.” This map is advertised with the following words: “If you walk down this road you will end up understanding how to be saved.”

The problem with the maps I have seen is that they have several bypasses in them, detours that take men onto a route that ends up on a dead-end street. Well, let me rephrase those words “dead-end street.” It would be more proper to call it “a street that ends up among the dead.” Just like my friend ended up in a graveyard, men who follow the typical Romans Road maps will end up among the dead.

Yes, that’s right! Those popular Romans Road maps totally bypass some very important truths in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Let’s take a look at Romans again, carefully, and look at a few points the popular road maps have detoured around. Unfortunately, a short article does not provide enough space to make a full commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans, so this short article is not intended to be a complete package in and of itself. It is written with the simple goal of alerting the reader of some missing aspects of the typical “Romans Road” map. Read the rest of this entry »

Introduction

The following tract was usually bound in the same Anabaptist books with the tract on “have to” vs. “want to” obedience, and since the writing style is so similar, it is assumed both are by the same author. Michael Sattler, who probably penned the Schleitheim Confession, is suspected to have written them, but they are unsigned, probably due to persecution to anyone whose name appeared as author of an Anabaptist tract.

The topic of this tract, as the previous one, is obedience. But this time the author does not deal with what kind of obedience we render, but rather if obedience is even necessary. The context is the Protestant Reformation, and the common—but mistaken—view held by some Protestants that “Jesus did it all on the cross; we only have to accept His perfect obedience to be saved.” This tract argues that Christ’s work is not finished until Christ has brought the believer to the cross with Him, and Christ is reigning in the heart of the believer. After all, a crucified Christ living in the heart of an uncrucified believer is an impossibility!

This version is a slightly more “free” translation than the more “scholarly” translations that others have made of the tract (Often titled, “On the Satisfaction of Christ”), but the original German text was consulted to keep it faithful to the author’s designs. Since the Scripture quotations are from an early German Bible (most likely the “Froschauer Bibel,” the tract was probably written before Luther had finished his translation)—or even just paraphrased by the author—the wording will be a bit different than what we are used to in our KJV. And, since the Froschauer Bibel did not have verse numbering, only the chapters are given in the references. The paragraph divisions, subtitles, footnotes, italics, and bold letters have been added to aid in readability and comprehension.

Keep in mind what the author is trying to bring forth: It takes more than “accepting what Christ did on the cross” to be saved. We must also take up our cross and put self to death. Only when self is on the cross and Christ is reigning as Lord over our entire being is His work finished.

Christ, the mercy seat

Paul says to the Romans in the third chapter, that they are all sinners and come short of the glory which God should have from them. However, without deserving it, they shall be made righteous by His grace, by means of the releasing which Christ accomplished. This is He whom God has foreshown to be a mercy seat, through faith in His blood. He did all this to demonstrate the righteousness which in God’s eyes has value, in that He forgave the sins which happened formerly under the divine patience.

He says; “From which also you are in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” John the Baptist says in John 1, “Look, that is God’s Lamb, who takes upon himself the sin of the world.” John says in 1 John 2, “And He is the reconciliation for our sins.” Peter says in I Peter 2, “Who offered Himself for our sin on the tree, that we might be without sin.” As the prophet also speaks, in Isaiah 53, “We are made well through His stripes.”

Such statements, I say, and others like them, the scribes[1] interpret as if a person could be saved through Christ, whether he does the works of faith or whether he doesn’t do the works of faith. If it didn’t matter whether a person did any works, why then should Paul say in Romans 2 that God will give to everyone according to his works? He clearly says that eternal life shall be given to those who strive after glory, praise, and immortality, with perseverance in good works. But to those who are quarrelsome and are not obedient to the truth, but are obedient to the evil, there will come disfavor, wrath, tribulation, and anxiety, yes, upon all the souls of men who do evil.

Some verses about doing good works

Listen to what Paul, Peter, and John are saying in the following verses: Read the rest of this entry »

Obedience is of two kinds, “have to” and “want to.”[1] The “want to” has its source in the love of the Father, even though no other reward should follow, yea even if the Father should desire to destroy His child. The “have to” has its source in hoping to get paid, or springs from self-love. “Want to” obedience always does as much as possible, without needing to be told to. “Have to” obedience does as little as possible, yea nothing except what is directly commanded. The “want to” is never able to do enough for Him; but he who renders “have to” obedience thinks he is constantly doing too much for Him.

The “want to” rejoices in the chastisement of the Father, even though he may not need chastisement because he has not transgressed in anything. The “have to” wishes to be without chastisement, even though he may do nothing right.

“Want to” obedience has its treasure and righteousness in the Father whom it obeys for the sole purpose of manifesting His righteousness. The “have to” person’s treasure and piety are the works which he does in order to be pious.

The “want to” remains in the house and inherits all the Father has. The “have to” wishes to reject this and receive his legally due pay.

The “have to” looks to the external and to the exact letter of the command of his Lord. The “want to” is concerned as well about the inner witness and the Spirit.

“Have to” obedience is imperfect, and therefore his Lord finds no pleasure in it. “Want to” obedience strives for and attains perfection, and for that reason the Father cannot reject him.

“Want to” obedience is not the opposite of “have to” obedience, as it might appear, but is better and higher. And therefore let him who is obeying because he “has to” seek for the better—the “I want to” obedience. In no way should he have an “I have to do this” attitude.

“Have to” obedience is Mosaic and produces Pharisees and scribes.[2] “Want to” obedience is Christ-like and makes children of God. The “have to” is either occupied with the ceremonies which Moses commanded or with those which people themselves have invented. The “want to” is focused on the love of God and one’s neighbor; yet he also submits himself to the ceremonies for the sake of those who serve because they “have to,” so that he may instruct them in that which is better and lead them to “want to” obedience.

“Have to” obedience produces self-willed and vindictive people; “want to” obedience creates peaceable and mild-natured persons. “Have to” obedience is wearisome and is glad when the job is done. But “want to” obedience is light and directs its gaze to that which endures.

The “have to” is grumpy, deep inside wanting to do his own will; the “want to” would gladly have all men to be as himself. The “have to” is the Old Covenant, and had the promise of temporal happiness. The “want to” is the New Covenant, and has the promise of eternal happiness, namely, the Creator Himself.

The “have to” is a beginning and preparation for happiness; the “want to” is the end and completion itself. The “have to” endured for a time; the “want to” will last forever. The “have to” was a figure and shadow; the “want to” is the reality and truth.

“Have to” obedience was established to reveal and increase sin.[3] “Want to” obedience follows to do away with and eliminate the revealed and increased sin.

The reason for the Mosaic Law

If a man wants to escape from sin, he must first hate it. And if he would hate it, he must first personally know it. And if he would know it, there must be something to stir up and make known his hidden sin. Now, it is Law or Scripture which does this: for as much as the Law demands, that much more the man turns from God to that which he has done, justifies himself by his ceremonial accomplishments, and clings to them as to his treasure. The greater his love for his accomplishments becomes, the more and the greater will grow his hatred for God and for his neighbor. For the more and the closer a man clings to the creature, the farther he is from God. The more he desires the creature, the less he will have of the Creator.

Moreover the law gives occasion to people to depart farther from God, not because of itself (for it is good[4]), but because of the sin which is in man. This is also the reason why Paul says that the law was given: that it might increase sin, that sin might thereby become known. Yea, the law is the strength of sin[5] and therefore it is just like the “have to” obedience, that is, obedience to law, which leads people into the most intense hatred of God and of one’s neighbor. Therefore “want to” obedience—love—is a sure way through which man escapes from such hatred and receives the love of God and of one’s neighbor. Therefore as one (having to do something) administers death, the other (wanting to do something) administers life. The one is the Old Testament ; the other, the New.

“Want to” obedience contrasted with “have to”

According to the Old Testament, only he who murdered was guilty of judgment; but in the New, he also who is angry with his brother. The Old gave permission for a man to separate from his wife for every reason; but not at all in the New, except for fornication. The Old permitted swearing if one swore truly, but the New will know of no swearing. The Old has its stipulated punishment, but the New does not resist the evil.

The Old permitted hatred for the enemy; the New loves him who hates, blesses him who curses, and prays for those who wish one evil. It also gives alms in a manner that the left hand does not know what the right has done. It says his prayer secretly, without evident and excessive babbling of mouth. It judges and condemns no one. It takes the mote out of the eye of one’s brother after having first cast the beam out of one’s own eye. And it fasts without any outward pomp and show.

The New is like a light which is set on a candlestick and lightens everyone in the house. It is like a city built on a hill, being everywhere visible. It is like good salt that does not become tasteless, being pleasing not to man, but to God alone. It is like a good eye which illuminates the whole body. It takes no anxious thought about clothing or food, but performs his daily and upright tasks.

The New does not cast pearls before swine_y nor that which is holy before dogs. It seeks, asks, and knocks; finding, receiving, and having the door opened for him. It enters through the narrow way and the small gate, and guards himself from the Pharisees and scribes as from false prophets. It is a good tree and brings forth good fruit. And it does the will of his Father, hearing what he should do, and then doing it.

The New is built upon Christ the chief cornerstone. It stands against all the gates of hell, that is, against the wrathful judgment of the Pharisees, of the mighty ones of earth, and of the scribes. It is a house and temple of God, against which no wind and no water may do anything, standing secure. Everything which withstands the teaching which proceeds from the New, denying its truth, will itself finally give evidence that the New is where God really dwells—although it is now maligned by the Pharisees and scribes as a habitation of the devil.

Yea, in the end those who obeyed because they “wanted to” shall hear, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God,” etc.[6] But of the house of the Pharisees and scribes (who didn’t put their heart in their obedience), it shall be said, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird,” etc.[7] But to God be all honor, praise, and glory through His beloved Son, our Lord and Brother Jesus Christ, Amen.

Michael Sattler was a first generation Anabaptist in Switzerland, a prominent leader in the so-called “Swiss Brethren.” After having his tongue cut out, he was burned at the stake for “heresy.” A few days later, his wife Margaretha was drowned. Although the author of this tract is actually not known, many scholars assume that Sattler is the author, from its style and it being associated with the Schleitheim Confession.

---

[1] The more literal translation of these phrases is “servile (slavish)” and “filial (sonly or family-like).” However, to make the article easier to grasp, the phrases “want to” and “have to” are used to catch the spirit of what the author was trying to say. A slave obeys because he “has to.” A true son obeys because he “wants to.”

[2] Here the author is probably referring to the Catholics (Pharisees) with their ceremonialism, and to the Protestants (scribes) with their sophisticated theological emphasis.

[3] Romans 5:20.

[4] Romans 7:12

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:56

[6] Revelation 21:3

[7] Revelation 18:2

Peter Riedemann was an Anabaptist leader of the sixteenth century. Pay close attention to how he describes what it means to be saved by Jesus.
We believe in Jesus Christ, that all our salvation and redemption is in Him. We believe He has stilled the Father’s wrath, and that God should reconcile the world through Him (1 Jn. 2), like Paul says: God was in Christ and reconciled the world to himself and counted not their sins to them (2 Co. 5). We are also reconciled with God, and there is no other name in which we might be saved, but the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (Acts 4)
First, we believe that in Christ we have releasing [redemption], or we could say that Christ has loosened us from the authority and ropes with which the devil had held us (He. 2). He has subdued and overcame the devil and taken his authority from him. The cords with which the devil held us are the sins in which we lay bound. We served him by practicing these very sins, (Ep. 3) until that Christ came into us through faith, to live there. Through His strength and working, He has weakened, quelled, killed, and carried away the sin in us, (1 Jo. 3; 1 Pe. 2) so that we should be freed from sin and live out righteousness. But He himself works and makes this righteousness come to pass in us, because we are not able to do anything without Him. (Jo. 15)
He himself, the Lord, propels the work within us and takes away the sin that we otherwise were not able to loosen ourselves from, but now though Him we are so free! The sins (which we long had served) should not lord it over us as before, (Ro. 6) even if they vigorously stir themselves up in our members. So, He is truly our Releaser! Read the rest of this entry »

Aaron and Ella rented a nice ranch house with a full basement from a gracious landlord. They had one son, John, and they loved their first-born; so much so that they could hardly contain themselves from spoiling the child. So when a neighbor showed up one day with the offer of a free kitty for their six-year-old, they excitedly conferred together and agreed it would make a nice pet. “It’s black and white, with long hair. I will bring it over as soon as it is mature enough.”

The kitty offer was forgotten in all the business of life. But true to his word, the neighbor showed up about a month later with a box. “Here he is, ready for John. Let me carry the box to the basement for you.”
So they permitted the neighbor to take the box to the basement. He seemed in a hurry to leave, so they did not think too much about it that he did not open the box. They called John in for the great moment. Imagine, to their great surprise, that when John opened the box, out jumped a large black and white … skunk!

It was too late. The frightened animal ran among the boxes of “stuff” stored in the basement and refused to come out. Poor John got sprayed in the process. What a nasty trick!

Aaron tried for many days to get the animal out of his house, but nothing availed. It got to the point that the skunk would immediately raise its tail and turn its rear end towards whoever opened the basement door, in preparation of defending itself. After twice getting blasted with spray, Aaron was at his wit’s end.

Then came the first of the month, when the rent was due. Aaron approached his landlord, and hesitatingly told the story of the skunk, and asked forgiveness for the terrible plight he had created for himself—and the house!

The landlord was gracious. He forgave Aaron, but gently reminded Aaron that he was responsible for the whole mess, and for getting the skunk out. So Aaron returned home, relieved to be forgiven, but perplexed with his plight.

Another whole month passed. Aaron still had the skunk in the basement, and he went to pay his rent. “I forgive you, Aaron. But remember it is your fault that the skunk got in there. You should get him out.”

So it went, month after month. Always forgiven, but the problem never went away. Until one day … John was looking out the window. Here came the landlord’s son carrying a trap. “Look!” he cried, “Here comes the landlord’s son to take away the skunk in the basement!”

Realizing that Aaron was incapable of getting himself out of his own mess, the landlord had pity on him and sent his son to take away the skunk in the basement. Yes, the skunk was caught in the trap, and the landlord’s son did get smelly in the process, but he took away the troublesome skunk.

Do you see the difference between the forgiveness of God, and the Lamb (His Son) that “taketh away” the sin of the world? God had been forgiving humanity of their sins ever since the beginning, if they would but humbly ask Him. It was man’s fault that sin entered the world, and it was not God’s responsibility to take it away. But He, being righteous (true righteous meaning “doing above and beyond what we are obligated to do”), took it upon Himself to supply the remedy, and sent His Son into the world to take sin away—remove it!

Now, the skunk removed and the deed forgiven, Aaron can be assured of a good continual relationship with his landlord. And we, having sin taken away (purged by the Spirit of God coming into our heart) and forgiven of our misdeeds, can walk in assurance of peace with our God.

Jesus saved the world by taking away its sin! And whosoever will may partake of this salvation.

–Mike Atnip

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a farmer’s son who was raising a pig for a 4-H project. Fair time was approaching fast, and Pete (the boy) was having a hard time keeping his pet clean. As all pigs are wont to do, it would instinctively investigate every mud puddle that it happened upon—even immediately after Pete had given him a good scrubbing with firm instructions to stay clean!

Pete knew that he stood no chance of winning the blue ribbon if he took a dirty pig to the show. But try as he might, he could not get his pig to keep himself clean once he had been given a thorough scrubbing. Pete’s only place to keep his pig was in a pen in which one corner stayed dry, but 90% of the pen was a mud hole—much to the pig’s great delight!

Pete schemed for days about his dilemma. How could he save his pig from his own natural instincts? He could put his pig in a strait jacket, but what would the judges think when he arrived at the fair with his pig in a strait jacket? And how could he walk his pig to town in a strait jacket? Oodles of puddles lay in the path to town, and he knew, he just knew, that his pet could never detour a mud puddle!

Finally, the great idea came upon Pete. He noticed that Skimps the kitty hated mud puddles! It would cost the life of his only kitty, but if only …

So he tried it. With a deft operation, Pete managed to take the soul out of the cat and put it into his pig.

How changed the pig was! He still weighed 220 pounds. He still had a snout and a curly tail. He still ate breakfast. But how he hated mud puddles with a passion!

The day of the show came, and Pete walked his pig to the fair. People stared in wonder at the boy and his pig walking down the puddle-filled road. The pig detoured or jumped over every mud puddle, with the amazing agility of a cat!

And so the pig, which had been given a thorough scrubbing some days previously, arrived at the show shining clean. What few spots he had received on the way to the show were promptly licked clean … you know, just like Skimps used to clean himself! By this means, Pete won the blue ribbon. The soul of the kitty in the body of the pig had saved the day!

This parable is by no means perfect. Yet it explains how that man can avoid the “mud puddles” of fleshly delights which fill this world we live in. Not by strait jackets, but by a change of character. If we box ourselves out of society by moving to some remote island, we may avoid many temptations. But that is not true freedom. The real freedom comes from having the character of Jesus placed into our hearts by a new birth. When this happens, we will hate sin just like the pig with a kitty heart hated those mud puddles.

Have you been born again? Has the nature of God been restored in you? Although we know that Pete could never put a kitty soul into a pig, we know that God can put Christ within us, thus saving us from our sin.

Hallelujah, what a salvation! ~Mike Atnip

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Pe. 1:4

Many have read the verse that says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Yet how many people today see the kingdom? How come very few even preach about the central theme of the Gospel, which was the coming of the promised king, the anointed?
In Can you see the kingdom?, Bro. Dean Taylor addresses such points as:
-Why is the kingdom of God rarely preached today, as a present reality?
-Why do people interpret Jesus through Paul’s writings, instead of interpreting Paul’s writings through Jesus?
-The kingdom of God was the ushering in of a new age
-The kingdom began 2000 years ago, and shall never end
This audio message is a primer for those who are used to the kingdom-less message preached in most Evangelical churches. A lot more could have been said, but this foundational teaching should give the listener a new paradigm on what the gospel really is.
The real good news is … (listen to the message!)
(And please contact me if you feel the mp3 is of too low a quality. Thank you!)