The Significance of the Lord's Supper among Sixteenth Century Evangelical Anabaptists

Imagine the scene, January 21, 1525 in Zurich, Switzerland. On that night, three brave men rejected their own infant baptism, defying their church and the government to be baptized as believers. These men, called the Swiss Brethren, immediately began sharing the Lord's Supper together in private homes and public gatherings. As the movement grew, even amidst constant danger and persecution, these Anabaptists (re-baptizers) loved gathering together to enjoy the fellowship and unity of the Lord's Supper. They were harsh in their criticism of corrupt leaders and a corrupt church/state power system and many were martyred within a few short years. While modern believers of different denominations and traditions should always take a more brotherly and loving tone as we discuss and debate these issues, there is much to learn from these Radical Reformers as we follow their journey to rediscover the Supper of Christ. Here is my paper: 

"The Significance of the Lord's Supper among Sixteenth Century Evangelical Anabaptists"

The early Anabaptists roundly rejected the Catholic treatment of the Eucharist along with its rituals, developing for themselves a unique and robust theology of the Lord’s Supper. Modern Baptists can derive benefit from a careful study of these Radical Reformer’s beliefs about communion and how it was observed. By examining their reasons for rejecting Catholic traditions, studying their understanding of the symbolism in the supper, determining who they allowed to participate in the memorial meal, and discovering their perceptions of the banquet’s purpose, the reader will come to a deeper understanding of the communion of Christ.  

The Corruption of the 16th Century Catholic Communion

The early Anabaptist leaders were vehemently opposed to the observance of the Eucharist being offered by the Roman Catholic Church at that time, denouncing it with colorful and incendiary language.

Menno Simons, a former Catholic priest who became the leader of the Dutch Anabaptists, called it the devil’s table and an abomination made by anti-Christ. He accused the priests of seeking worldly honor and criticized them for their hypocrisy, pomp and idolatry, comparing their ritual to Israel’s worship of the golden calf.[1]

Pilgrim Marpeck, a civil engineer and Anabaptist leader, accused the Pope of knavery and said that he represented the Antichrist. He called the Roman ritual of the supper blasphemous, a gruesome idolatry and a monkeyshine. He felt that the whole situation was scandalous and that the true meaning of communion had been perverted, obfuscated, repressed and forgotten.[2]  

Conrad Grebel, one of the Swiss Brethren, the first group to accept believer’s baptism, called the mass antichristian priestly rites. He referred to it as adulterated false doctrine, an actual idol and even apostasy.[3]

Peter Riedemann, a leader among the relentlessly persecuted Hutterites, called the Catholic Eucharist idolatry and an abomination. He believed that the enemy (Satan) had distorted the Lord’s Supper.[4]

These re-baptizing reformers were more instructive in their refutations of transubstantiation, the Catholic teaching that when the elements of bread and wine are blessed by a priest they are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Prior to his trial, torture and martyrdom, Michael Sattler stated that because Jesus had ascended into heaven and would not return until the final judgement, the bread and wine were not the true flesh and blood of Christ.[5]

Menno called it heresy to treat the Eucharist as a means of grace and deliverance from death and hell. He asserted that because Jesus is risen, he cannot be eaten, adding that because Christ is incorruptible, he cannot be consumed. He complained that because Jesus was sacrificed once for sin, they were attempting to sacrifice him over and over.[6]

In his “Form for the Supper of Christ,” another former Catholic priest turned pastor/theologian, Dr. Balthasar Hubmaier stipulated that the speaker should clearly say that the bread and wine are not flesh and blood.[7]

Riedemann argued from Acts 7:48 that because God does not live in temples made with human hands and since bread is always made with human hands, Christ is not in the bread.[8]  Also expanding the discussion to address the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, the belief that the flesh and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine, Marpeck cleverly insisted that since Jesus was seated at the table with his disciples, the bread and wine did not contain his flesh and blood. He used John 16:25 to point to a time after the institution of the supper when Jesus reminded the disciples how he had been speaking to them in proverbs and parables, but would now speak plainly. Pilgrim reasoned that Jesus had been speaking in such a way at the table and that this supported a metaphorical or memorial view of the meal taught by Christ at His last supper with the disciples.[9]

The Memorial Meaning in the Meal

An important aspect of the Anabaptist understanding of the meaning in the Lord’s Supper comes from the words of Jesus, recorded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. They used a reading similar to that found later in the King James Version which reads in part: “Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me…This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”[10]  Most modern translations do not contain the word broken, but it was an integral part of Anabaptist theology which was drawn from a reading consistent with the majority of ancient manuscripts. Some raise concerns about the prophecy of Psalm 34:20 that none of Christ’s bones would be broken. John 19:36 demonstrates that this prophecy did indeed come true. But it is also true that Jesus’ physical body was beaten and broken to the point of death, as Isaiah 53:5 prophesied, saying He would be pierced, crushed, punished and wounded with stripes, which gives credence to the Anabaptist position. In “The Scheitheim Confession,” Michael Sattler stated that the church should share one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ and one drink in remembrance of the shed blood of Christ.[11]

Hubmaier encouraged that explanation of the Scriptures accompany the eating of the meal, specifically proclaiming Jesus’ death and suffering. He taught that viewing the elements as anything other than a memorial did violence to the articles of the Christian faith.[12] Grebel wrote that the supper was not a sacrament, but a sign of fellowship meant to remind believers of the covenant of the cross.[13] Marpeck preferred to use the word communion instead of sacrament to avoid confusion about the nature of the event. He observed it as an evening meal of bread and wine in which he encouraged others to consider with reverence and thankfulness that Jesus lost his life for the forgiveness of sins. Like Sattler, he stressed eating from one bread and drinking from one cup in memory of Christ and proclaiming his death. He also placed importance on the broken state of Jesus’ body. He considered correct communion, along with correct baptism and proclaiming the Gospel, to be one of three essential elements of the true church. He believed the Lord’s Supper brought refreshment, strengthening and solace to the soul.[14]  

Menno directly related the memorial nature of the Passover to the memorial nature of the Holy Supper. He portrayed Jesus as the spotless, sacrificial lamb, acknowledging the substitutionary nature of the atonement, mentioning the broken body of Christ and the ardent love he displayed through his death. Menno demonstrates that most Anabaptists did not view communion as a mere memorial. He cited Matthew 18:20 to show that where people were gathered in the name of Jesus, His Spirit was present with them. He said “It is a heavenly power, a living, moving of the Holy Ghost, which warms the heart and mind of the believers, pervades, comforts, anoints, encourages, awakens and enlivens them, makes them joyful and happy in God. For this is the true nature and power of the Lord’s word, if it be rightly preached, and of his Holy Sacraments, if rightly used.”[15]

Dirk Phillips, who became the leader of the Mennonites after the death of his friend Menno, also held to the supper as a memorial and more. He believed that the elements of communion must be understood spiritually. He expounded from John 6:33 that Jesus is the living bread and he demonstrated from Isaiah 55:1 that His Word is the pure wine. Explaining that eating often signifies believing in the Bible, he preached that the true bread of heaven is God’s Word and that believers are fed with that bread. Like Menno, Dirk also went beyond the concept of a memorial, teaching that participation in the meal refreshed the soul and made one joyful in the Holy Spirit.[16] 

Who May Eat Of the Lord’s Table?

Riedemann wrote that before taking communion people should examine themselves to make sure they are true members of Christ.[17] Menno also encouraged self-examination. He harshly criticized the Catholic Church for opening communion to all people including adulterers, gays, idolaters, drunkards and others whom he felt did not meet the Biblical qualifications to be guests at the Lord’s Table. He insisted that communion was only for truly believing Christians who had been born of God. In addition to explaining the Scriptures, he offered a chance to respond prior to partaking in the meal.[18]

Hubmaier prescribed the confession of sins and offered a formulaic prayer of forgiveness. He provided an opportunity to ask questions about essential matters. Also an advocate of self-examination, he admonished the people to think about whether they truly believed and were grateful, hungering for bread from heaven and had the desire to care for their neighbor. Drawing from 1 Corinthians 11:29 which warns about eating the supper unworthily, he compared falsely eating the supper to Adam’s eating of the forbidden fruit which brought death. He only allowed baptized believers to participate in the meal writing that “as faith precedes love, water baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper.”[19]

Marpeck described the supper as a gathering of Christian believers and warned that damnation would result from eating and drinking by unbelievers. He taught that the Lord’s Supper was for the church which was made up of believers who had been brought together by baptism. He went so far as to teach that one of the two main functions of communion was to cut off and ban unbelievers, separating themselves from evil. This was pre-requisite to the other main function of the meal in Marpeck’s theology which was to hold the church together, uniting them in faith and in love.[20]

The Purpose of Unity in the Body of Christ

Sattler wrote that “whoever has not been called by God to one faith, to one Baptism, to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God’s church cannot be made [into] one bread with them.”[21] One of the most fascinating aspects to the Anabaptist theology of the supper is their treatment of the symbolism in 1 Corinthians 10:17: “For we being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.”[22] Simons, Riedemann, and Phillips all share an interesting expositional idea of this verse with another Hutterite leader, Claus Felbinger, who states it beautifully and succinctly: “As natural bread is composed by the coming together of many grains, ground under the millstones…and wine is composed of many grapes, each sharing its juice with the rest in the wine press, so that they become one drink. Even so are we also, in that we become completely one nature with Him, in life and in death, and are all one in Christ.”[23] 

Riedemann treated the meal as a sign of the community of Christ’s body. Using the picture of grain scattered about, he emphasized that people are scattered and divided with different ideas, but are led together by faith and united into the body of Christ.[24]

Menno emphasized faith, love peace and unity in the supper. Like different grains, he pointed out that the church consists of many believers brought together by God’s word. He accentuated the importance of service, acting in love toward one another, being friendly, long-suffering and peaceful. For Menno the supper was a Christian banquet where true believers experienced harmony in the presence of God.[25] His friend Dirk also emphasized harmony and the fellowship of the meal. He pointed out that unity comes from the Spirit.[26] Modern Mennonites still draw from these examples, using the parable of the grains and citing the “Didache,” a book of ancient Christian teaching from about 100 A.D. which indicates that at that time the Lord’s Supper and the Love Feast were one and the same.[27]

Dr. Hubmaier also realized the importance of exhibiting an attitude of love and thanksgiving in the supper. He promoted brotherly love and the fellowship of the saints through eating the meal together. He included a pledge of love to be recited before eating together which expressed love to God and included reminders to love one’s neighbor and practice fraternal admonition. Like the others, he also taught that believers become one loaf and one body through the supper.[28]

Even Ulrich Zwingli, the magisterial former mentor of the Swiss Brethren, who is often credited with creating a mere memorial view of the meal, wrote that it was an intimate union of the body and a symbol of that union.[29] His former mentee, Conrad Grebel, called it a supper of fellowship. He believed the words spoken during communion were words of unity, not consecration. He wrote that the meal should be eaten with joy if faith and brotherly love are present, agreeing that the church becomes one loaf. He added that if a person ate the supper but did not intend to live in a brotherly way, then that person ate condemnation.[30]

Marpeck also taught that those who eat the bread become one body. He called the gathering an assembly of love, a time of fellowship that builds a bond of love and a lovely Christian meal. He taught that believers should be consoled and delighted during the event. He echoed another important Anabaptist belief that the supper was a time for people to get right with God and be reconciled with other believers, calling it a fellowship of love.[31]

Unity was a major theme and purpose for the Lord’s Supper in Anabaptist belief which, along with many other aspects of their rich theology, made it into their hymns. Matthew 26:30 records that after the last supper was eaten, Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn and then departed. The Anabaptists also wrote and sang hymns of communion, sometimes using familiar melodies from the Eucharist and re-writing them with better theology. They sang about baptism and the Holy Spirit’s role in bringing the church together. They remembered the connection to Passover and sang of Jesus as the Lamb. They warned of hypocrisy, invited others to join the body of Christ and sang about opening their hearts to Him. This verse beautifully expresses the theme of unity found in these hymns: “Just as one bread from many kernels, and one drink from many berries, so all true Christians, are one bread and one drink, without deceit or duplicity, in Christ the Lord. He nourishes us, multiplying true love and communion.”[32]

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper was a vibrant and vital part of Anabaptist church life. Modern Anabaptists still consider it to be a profound and formative symbol.[33] The early Anabaptists took the meal in homes and observed it in worship gatherings, but their primary focus was not on where it was taken or how the elements were offered, but rather on the meaning and purpose of the gathering. By rejecting the man-made traditions of the established church, they were able to come to more Biblical convictions about the supper of Christ and its meaning.
Rather than adopting the sometimes harsh rhetoric of the radical reformers in their denunciation of the old practices, modern believers would do well to note the apologetic tone of Conrad Grebel’s letter to Thomas Muntzer which was at the same time brotherly, corrective and appealing in tone.

Embracing a memorial view of the supper, they restored a solemn remembrance of the work of Jesus Christ, proclaiming His suffering and death for the forgiveness of sins. Even in their zeal to protect the table, many of them provided an opportunity to hear the Gospel and respond prior to participating in the meal.

The early Anabaptists were not shy about correcting one another. In fact, brotherly confrontation and correction were not considered divisive actions, but were an important aspect of their observance of communion, intended to protect unity by separating from unbelievers and drawing wayward brothers and sisters to repentance. They promoted the practices of self-examination, repentance and reconciliation. By only allowing baptized believers to participate, the supper was reclaimed as a unifying meal to comfort the followers of Jesus. While they did promote self-examination prior to eating the meal, they also encouraged a time of thinking about others and attempting reconciliation. First, they focused inward, getting right with God. Then they focused outward, getting right with each other. They could rejoice in the fellowship and unity that comes through the Holy Spirit when the true church is gathered together.

The Anabaptist commitment to serving a Biblical communion meal led to a gathering filled with purpose. They restored the reverence, remembrance, fellowship, joy and unity of the Lord’s Supper to His church in their time. Learning from their example can enrich the observance of communion for His church today.

Bibliography

Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story. Third Edition ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996.

Goncharenko, Simon V. "Balthasar Hubmaier's Integration of Discipline and Theology." Chap. 9, In The Anabaptists and Contemporary Baptists, edited by Malcolm B. Yarnell III, 155-179. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic, 2013.

Harder, Leland, ed. The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents. Classics of the Radical Reformation. Edited by Cornelius J. Dyck. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985.

Klaasen, Walter, ed. Anabaptism in Outline. Classics of the Radical Reformation. Edited by Cornelius J. Dyck. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981.

Klassen, William and Walter Klaasen, eds. The Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck. Classics of the Radical Reformation. Edited by Cornelius Dyck and Walter Klaassen. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978.

Kroeker, Wally. "The Element of Unity in the Anabaptist Practice of the Lord's Supper." Direction Journal 12, no. 3 (July 1983): 29-38.

Pipkin, Wayne and John Yoder, eds. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the Radical Reformation. Edited by Cornelius J. Dyck. Translated by Wayne Pipkin and John Yoder. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989.

Rempel, John D. "The Lord's Supper in Mennonite Tradition." Vision 2, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 4-15 (accessed 2/29/2019).

Rideman, Peter. Confession of Faith. Translated by Kathleen E. Hasenberg. Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950.

Simon, Menno. Menno Simon: The Complete Writings. Elkhart, Indiana: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871.

Snyder, Arnold. "Was the Bread Only Bread and the Wine Only Wine? Sacramental Theology in Five Anabaptist Hymns." Conrad Grebel Review 24, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 26-44.

Ste. Marie, Andrew V. I Appeal to Scripture! The Life and Writings of Michael Sattler. Manchester, MI: Sermon on the Mount Publishing, 2018.

The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version. World Bible Publishers. Belgium.

---

[1] Simon, Menno, Menno Simon: The Complete Writings (Elkhart, Indiana: John F. Funk & Brother, 1871), 37-40.

[2] Klassen, William and Walter Klassen, eds. The Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978), 261-296.

[3] Harder, Leland, ed. The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985), 286-288.

[4] Rideman, Peter. Confession of Faith (Great Britain: Hodder and Stoughton, 1950), 82-87.

[5] Ste. Marie, Andrew V. I Appeal to Scripture! The Life and Writings of Michael Sattler (Manchester, MI: Sermon on the Mount Publishing, 2018), 136.

[6] Simon. Menno Simon: Complete Writings. 37-40.

[7] Pipkin, Wayne and John Yoder, eds. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989), 393-408.

[8] Rideman. Confession of Faith. 82-87.

[9] Klassen. Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck. 261-296.

[10] The Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version. (World Bible Publishers: Belgium), 142.

[11] Ste. Marie. Life and Writings of Michael Sattler. 116.

[12] Pipkin. Balthasar Hubmaier. 393-408.

[13] Harder. Sources of Swiss Anabaptism. 286-288.

[14] Klassen. Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck. 261-296.

[15] Simon. Menno Simon: Complete Writings. 37-40

[16] Klassen, Walter, ed. Anabaptism in Outline (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1981), 204-208

[17] Rideman. Confession of Faith. 82-87.

[18] Simon. Menno Simon: Complete Writings. 37-40

[19] Pipkin. Balthasar Hubmaier. 393-408.

[20] Klassen. Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck. 261-296.

[21] Ste. Marie. Writings of Michael Sattler. 116.

[22] Authorized King James Version. 141.

[23] Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996), 136.

[24] Rideman. Confession of Faith. 82-87

[25] Simon. Menno Simon: Complete Writings. 37-40.

[26] Klassen. Anabaptism in Outline. 204-208.

[27] Kroeker, Wally. “The Element of Unity in the Anabaptist Practice of the Lord’s Supper.” Direction Journal 12, no. 3 (July 1983): 29-38.

[28] Pipkin. Balthasar Hubmaier. 393-408.

[29] Harder. Sources of Swiss Anabaptism. 310.

[30] Ibidem. 286-288

[31] Klassen. Writings of Pilgrim Marpeck. 261-296.

[32] Snyder, Arnold. “Was the Bread Only Bread and the Wine Only Wine?” Sacramental Theology in Five Anabaptist Hymns.” Conrad Grebel Review 24, no 3 (Fall 2006): 26-44.

[33] Rempel, John D. “The Lord’s Supper in Mennonite Tradition.” Vision 2, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 4.

2 Problems with the Statement on Artificial Intelligence

Today Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles was released by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention. There are serious moral concerns associated with the emergence of AI and its various applications and this is a timely and important piece. However, there are a few concessions that concern me. In statements like these there is a tendency to give as much ground as possible in order to establish rapport with the other side and I believe that a few of their points went too far.

In Article 3 on the relationship between AI and humanity, they wrote that AI 

is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability.

It is fine to acknowledge that technology is available for data processing, but the claim that tech exceeds human ability for making determinations is disturbing. A determination is a decision, conclusion, choice, ruling or judgement. It would have been more appropriate to acknowledge that AI is a tool that excels at processing data to provide information to aid human beings in making decisions. 

Along the same lines, Article 5 on bias recommends that AI

should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making

The implication that a machine of artificial intelligence created to mimic fallen man can make better decisions than a human being created in God's image is dangerous. In these assertations, the ERLC has forgotten to consider the difference between fallen man and redeemed human beings who are filled with the Holy Spirit. They have inadvertently elevated the algorhythmic potential of a man-made device over the judgement of the Holy Spirit. No machine has ever been created or will ever be created that can hold a candle to the wisdom of a child of God filled with His Spirit. 2 Timothy 1:7 declares:

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love and sound judgement. 

A machine is based only on the knowledge of good and evil, twisted and obscured by the fall. James 3:16-17 contrasts fallen knowledge with heavenly wisdom:

For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there is disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

In Babylon, Daniel and his 3 friends were found to be 10 times wiser than the wisest and most well-educated men in the ancient world--men who were crafty and filled with all the knowledge this fallen world has to offer. But Daniel was filled with the Spirit of the Holy God. Isaiah 11:2 describes the Holy Spirit this way:

The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. -Isaiah 11:2

The knowledge that comes from above is superior to all worldly acumen. 1 Corinthians 3:19-20 proclaims:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, since it is written, He catches the wise in their craftiness; and again, The Lord knows that the reasonings of the wise are futile.

AI machines are designed and programmed to "mimic" secular, worldly human thinking, which the Bible says is foolishness and futile. The ERLC was right to state that if used for war, AI should be subject to human oversight. They would do well to apply the same logic to articles 3 and 5 as well. A human being, created in the Image of God and filled with the Holy Spirit is at least 10 times more capable of making wise decisions than any sort of construct. Colossians 2:3 boldly declares:

ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden with Him

John 16:13 proclaims:

When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth...

Artificial Intelligence is a half truth. The name is certainly right about the artificial part. But these programs do not possess any form of true intelligence. Computers are not capable of showing compassion. Machines are not moral agents. AI will inherently reflect the fallen values and beliefs of secular mankind which cannot compare with the wisdom redeemed children of God receive through the Holy Spirit. The ERLC is correct encourage involvement in overseeing these technologies, but human decision making should never be delegated to machines. I will likely write on this subject again to share my many thoughts on these issues, but for now we should all pray as Paul prayed:

I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, would give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.  -Ephesians 1:17

5 Powerful Privileges Given to God's Children

I recently heard a speaker claim that God cannot fill us with the Holy Spirit through prayer, worship, meeting together with the church or reading the Bible. I felt like that was an astonishingly arrogant thing to say from behind the sacred desk and it was very upsetting to me. God is Omnipotent, All-Powerful. He can do what He wants, how and when He wants. The speaker further said that God can only fill us through personal life experiences, specifically negative ones. That is a shockingly limiting statement to make about Almighty God and it is literally the opposite of what the Bible teaches. In fact, it is similar to a false teaching that was perpetrated upon the Galatians. Paul wrote to them: 

O foolish Galatians, having begun by the spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh? 

God does not fill us or sanctify us through works or life experiences in the flesh. He fills us so that we can get through life's difficult circumstances, overwhelmingly conquering and spreading the Gospel as we go. 

Interestingly, the speaker did point out in a way that prayer, worship, meeting together and reading the Bible are spiritual activities. Sadly, he missed the point that the Holy Spirit is actively working in our lives in a powerful way through these wonderful privileges we have been given as God's children. 

It all begins when we repent of our sins and ask Jesus to come into our heart. At that moment, we immediately receive His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, in our hearts. He renews, regenerates and baptizes us into Christ and into the church and He will never leave us or forsake us. But that is just the beginning of our relationship, not the end. He continually works throughout our lives, making us more like Jesus. 

I am sure of this, that he who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. -Philippians 1:6

God wants us to be made whole and complete and He accomplishes this through His Spirit. 

I pray that he may grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power in your inner being through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. I pray that you, being rooted and firmly established in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width, height and depth of God's love, and to know Christ's love that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Eph3:16-19

So, What does it mean to be Filled with the Holy Spirit? 

The Greek word translated as "filled," is pleroo, which means to be satisfied, like the way a deep hunger is fed or a terrible thirst is quenched. I think of what the psalmist wrote: 

As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When can I go and meet with God? Psalm 42:1-2 

Our greatest need is to be restored to close fellowship with God and He wants to satisfy this deep longing of our soul. Here are 5 ways the Holy Spirit works in our lives:

5 POWERFUL PRIVILEGES GIVEN TO GOD'S CHILDREN

1. MEETING TOGETHER

Jesus taught: Wherever 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them. God shows up in a special way when we gather as a church. 

Proverbs 10:11 says: “The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life” Proverbs 13:14 tells us that “Wise instruction is a fountain of life” God uses his church to speak life-giving words as we encourage, build and fill each other up.

2. SPEAKING WITH GOD THROUGH PRAYER

Jude 1:20 says: “But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit” 

Ephesians 6:18 exhorts us to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests”

The Holy Spirit is present and active with us in our prayers, helping us to pray for ourselves and for each other. Prayer is a very powerful way that we connect with the heart of God and communicate with Him.

3. READING AND UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE

Hebrews 4:12 tells us that the word of God is living and active…  

2 Timothy 3:16 shows us that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Proverbs 4:20-23 shows us how God’s word guards our hearts, brings physical healing to our bodies and helps us to bring those same benefits to others by letting God pour through us: “My son, pay attention to my words-incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart. For they are life to those who find them and health to their whole body. Guard your heart diligently for from it flow the springs of life.” 

God's Holy Spirit works in powerful ways through His Word. If we want to understand God and be more like Him, we need to spend time in the Bible.

4. WORSHIP

Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father 

Through corporate worship, we joins our hearts together with God and each other bringing unity to the Body of Christ.

Psalm 100 tells us: ...Come into His Presence with singing....enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise...

Worship is a way that we come into God's Presence in the holiest place and experience the Holy Spirit working in our hearts.

5. DIRECT MESSAGING

God dwells with us through His Spirit. He works directly in our hearts and speaks directly to our hearts. He leads us, helps us, directs our footsteps, prompts us to minister and serve, convicts us of sin, gives us discernment, teaches, comforts and guides us. 

I will ask the Father and He will give you another Helper/Comforter/Advocate/Counselor, to be with you forever….You know him, for he abides with you and will be in you…the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.… (from John 14)

Prayer, Worship, Fellowship, Scripture and Direct Messaging are the 5 major ways the Holy Spirit works in our lives to conform us to the image of Christ, that is, to make us more like Jesus. What incredible spiritual privileges we have as God's children!!!

Answering Dr. Yarnell's Questions about Inclusivism, Annihilationism and Whether the Bible Contradicts Itself

At the beginning of the year, serious issues came to light regarding the teaching at Southwest Baptist University up in Bolivar, Missouri. I am troubled by some of these doctrinal divergencies, but I also have concerns that good people who hold to unpopular, but perfectly Biblical and orthodox views could come under fire. On January 24, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell (brilliant theologian, gentleman, scholar and rightly esteemed Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth) responded to the situation at SBU by posing 3 important and thought-provoking questions on Twitter:

1. Is Annihilationism consistent with the Baptist Faith & Message?

2. Is Inclusivism consistent with the BF&M?

3. Does Scripture violate the law of non-contradiction. 

Annihilationism is the belief that at some point, the souls of unbelievers are destroyed rather than suffering an eternal conscious torment (for millions of years and forever in horrific and unimaginable torture by fire). Inclusivism is the belief that all religions are equally valid and all paths lead to heaven. The Law of Non-Contradiction means that the Bible never conflicts with itself because it does not contain any errors. 

INCLUSIVISM?
Let's start by looking at Inclusivism. 

In John 14:6 Jesus answered: I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by me. 

Jesus is the only way, the only path to heaven. His Gospel is the truth and everything else is a lie. My heart hurts for those trapped in false religions because of the family or country they were born into, but that is motivation to share the good news about Jesus, not to water it down. John 3:36 proclaims:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1 John 5:11-12 further testifies: 

God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

NO, inclusivism is not consistent with the BFM. More importantly, it is not consistent with Scripture. Eternal life comes ONLY through Jesus Christ. That life is available for whosoever, for anyone who believes, so the invitation is All-INclusive. But the promise is made available and the way provided EXclusively through Jesus. 

Non-Contradiction?
Does the Bible ever contradict or disagree with itself? NO. That is my firm conviction. I believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God with no mistakes. We like to use the terms Inspired and Inerrant. Paul wrote to Timothy that:

All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

I believe that every word of the Bible is exactly the word that God intended with the detail and nuance of meaning that He wanted to communicate to us in the original languages of Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament), and a bit of Aramaic. The term for this belief is verbal plenary inspiration. This is the understanding that God didn't just inspire the basic thoughts or ideas found in Scripture, but that each and every word has specific meaning and purpose. It is because of these beliefs that when I find an apparent contradiction between passages of Scripture in an English translation of the Bible, I study hard to reconcile and harmonize them, looking up words in the original languages when necessary. Every time I do this, without fail, I find treasure in the form of a better understanding of Scripture, a deeper understanding of God's nature and character and even firmer confidence in His word. 

A good example of the need for this type of study was exhibited when one of the professors at SBU admitted that the Bible seems to contradict itself on the issue of Annihilationism. Since we know God's word never disagrees, it behooves us to undertake just such a study now. I invite you to come with me on this brief, but incredibly important journey.

Annihilationism?
Traditionally, many Baptists believe that unbelievers will suffer an eternal conscious torment in hell. But Jesus seems to provide contradictory teachings on the subject. Here are the two most obvious examples: 

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus says: 

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

In this passage, Jesus clearly says that the soul is destroyed in hell, or Gehenna. Apollumi, the word translated as destroy, means to perish, to abolish, to put to death, to separate and destroy. It also implies the separation/severing and destruction of a union, the end of a relationship. This verse strongly seems to indicate an annihilation. 

But in Matthew 25:46, speaking about the fate of the unrighteous at the final judgement, Jesus says:

And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. 

To someone who has grown up hearing a certain type of preaching about hell, this passage might immediately evoke thoughts of an eternal conscious suffering in hell. But with a little study, we can learn that the word translated as punishment is kolasis, from the root word kolos, which means to prune or lop off, the way a tree is pruned. This word does not indicate an eternal conscious torment, but rather that the wicked are punished by being permanently cut off from God. 

Since both passages teach a permanent severing of the relationship with God, an eternal state of being cut off and separated from Him, we are left to answer the question: What happens to a soul when it is cut off from God? The passage in Matthew 10 tells us 2 parts of the story: The soul will be separated from all communion and connection with God AND destroyed.  Not only is there no contradiction here, but the passage from chapter 25 builds on the earlier teaching, giving us the added imagery of a branch being pruned from a vine or tree. 

Jesus said: I am the vine, you are the branches, Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do NOTHING. (John 15:5)

Apart from Jesus, we can do nothing. As we already learned today, Eternal life only comes through Jesus. We can't even exist without Him. 1 Timothy 6:15-16 teaches us that God alone is Sovereign, King of Kings, Lord of Lords and that ONLY God is Immortal. Only God. Fellow human being, neither you nor I possess an immortal soul. Eternal life comes only one way, from being connected to Jesus. Act 17:28 affirms that In Him we live and move and have our being. Jesus taught that a soul cut off from Him is destroyed. 

Before moving on to explore more Biblical teaching about judgement and what happens to the souls of unbelievers, let's answer the question at hand. Is Annihilationism consistent with our denomination's doctrinal confession the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 or does it contradict?

The BFM states: The unrighteous will be consigned to hell the place of everlasting punishment. When most Baptists read this passage they likely envision an eternal conscious torment of the soul. When I read it I immediately think of Matthew 10:28 and 25:46. I read everlasting punishment, drawn from verse 46, as punished by being eternally cut off from God and all that implies. Everlasting and Eternal are ways of translating the same Greek word, aionios. This means the punishment is permanent and will not be relented from, but does not specifically refer to an ongoing state of torment, but rather a state of being cut off from God forever. I am perfectly happy to remain in friendly cooperation with those who disagree, as long as I am free to study and discuss the issue in a kind, loving and brotherly manner. Since the BFM does not mention eternal conscious torment, I see no conflict and so my answer is YES, annihilationism is consistent with the BFM because it affirms eternal punishment, though it differs from the popular tradition of what that punishment is. 

The Rest of the Story
In no way does annihilationism disagree with the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed and those basic, orthodox beliefs that all Christians agree upon. But the more important question is this: Does annihilationism agree with the complete counsel of Scripture on the subject of the souls of unbelievers? Is it sound, Biblical doctrine?

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31, Jesus describes a rich man who lived a life of indulgence and has died, finding himself suffering in Hades. The Old King James version, beautiful as it is, unfortunately translated this word as Hell, which was confusing, since a very different word, Gehenna was also translated as Hell. Nearly all modern translations now read: Hades. The man was clearly in torment and aware or conscious of it. Two different words are translated as torment and tormented in the text. One is a word for testing which will be discussed later, the other, Odunao, is the actual Greek word for torment, meaning intense grief and pain. Hades is a place where unsaved souls suffer a conscious torment after the death of their physical body, but Hades does not last forever. 

Revelation 14:9-11 describes God's judgement on the unrighteous. Revelation 20:11-15 also describes his judgement when all the dead in Hades are given up to be judged for their works. Hades is not a permanent place of residence. It is more like spiritual death row for those awaiting God's ultimate judgement. After judgement, they are consigned to the lake of fire. Here are those passages:

...he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image...

Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. 

The words translated as tormented and torment are not odunao, the Greek word for unbearable grief and pain we learned about earlier. They are the words basanizo and basanismos. These words describe the process of using a black touchstone to test the purity of gold and silver. When soft metals are scraped across the stone, they leave a mark. The mark made by the purest gold cannot be erased, even with strong acid, but the impure mark can be dissolved and erased. I believe these words are intended to stir up specific mental images. Gold and Silver have been tested with touchstones since around 3,500 B.C. A first century audience would surely have envisioned this process. Even 10 or 12 carrot gold will dissolve, but the purest Gold mark of 18 carrots or higher can not be wiped out or annihilated. In the same way, no amount of good works or even the imprint of the image of God on a person can get them through this testing. We are all stained and made impure by sin. The only way to be pure enough to pass this test is to be cleansed and made pure through Jesus. He passed the test for us. Basanizo absolutely DOES NOT mean to torment or torture. That is a poor and incorrect translation. It means to TEST. Believers will pass this purity test, unbelievers will not. The Bible frequently refers to Christians as being like gold or silver refined in the fire. Scripture also tells us that the righteous will pass the test and pass through the flames and that the unrighteous will not pass the test and will be destroyed in the flames. This is a permanent, once and forever purity test. When we replace the words tormented and torment with the more accurate words tested and testing, it is easy to see that this text cannot and should not be used as a proof text to support eternal conscious torment. ...He will be tested with fire and Sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb and the smoke of their testing goes up forever and ever...

Hebrews 3 reminds us not to have wicked unbelieving hearts so that it won't be said about us They will not enter my rest. In the same way that a generation of rebellious Israelites was not allowed to enter the promised land, unbelievers will not be allowed to enter heaven, not by the light of day, not by the cover of darkness, not ever. When the text says they will have no rest by day or night, our attention should be drawn to the fact that the alternations of day and night are earthly, temporal things that are about to pass away (Rev 22:5). There will be no night or day in eternity, only God's eternal light.  The wicked will never enter into God's rest in heaven where he is the source of light. The unrighteous will be dealt with once and for all. There is no purgatory, no second chance for salvation after death, no indulgences, no way to pay, pray or work their way out of this judgement. God's decision is forever and ever, permanent and eternal, once and for all. 

I believe that the nail in the coffin of the belief in eternal conscious torment comes from these words: This is the SECOND DEATH, the lake of fire. Just last week, as I was preparing to teach our Sunday Morning Bible study class, I was reading the background information about Egyptian culture provided in our Southern Baptist Sunday School Literature from Lifeway. It says that the Egyptians believed in life after death and they believed that if all earthly memory of a person was erased, they would suffer....wait for it....drumroll please.....THE SECOND DEATH. They specifically called this second death the Annihilation of the Spirit, that part of a person which lives in the afterlife. The book of Revelation was written for Jews and Gentiles alike. I believe Jesus chose this exact word to convey the precise meaning he intended. Would not an Egyptian reading this familiar term have understood it to mean the annihilation of the soul? The people of Israel would have probably become quite familiar with this concept during their lengthy and never-forgotten sojourn in that land. A first century audience would have almost certainly understood this phrase to be referring to the destruction, death and total annihilation of the soul. Even without this context, the term is clear enough in and of itself. The Second Death is the annihilation of the soul.

The death of the soul is a serious thing. But eternal life, at peace, enjoying God's rest in heaven, is available for all who will place their faith, hope and trust in Jesus Christ. And that is Good News. 

I have written more extensively about Hades, Gehenna, the Lake of Fire and the nature of the soul and included a substantial list of Scripture References at this link: What the Bible Really Teaches About Hell...and What It Doesn't

I am more than happy to cooperate with brothers and sisters who disagree with me. I rejoice that the Baptist Convention in my home state of Missouri is regaining control of the Missouri Baptist Home and Missouri Baptist University. I applaud their efforts to tighten the reins at SBU. But I sincerely hope that annihilationists will not become the subject of witch hunts. Our beliefs fall well within the boundaries of orthodoxy. Faithful followers of Christ with the highest possible view of Scripture can hold to this position and their perspective deserves to be heard, studied and discussed. I am grateful for Dr. Yarnell's excellent questions. I have mulled them over for the past month and increased my own understanding in the process. I have no agenda other than to see the Bible taught correctly and God's nature and character rightly represented. 

Now, friends and readers, brothers and sisters, I have a few questions of my own. If you believe in the Eternal Conscious Torment of the soul, and if you're wrong, how might your teaching negatively impact people's perception of God? Will I be thrown away for my beliefs, my opinion discounted and exiled from Baptist life as annihilationists are hunted down and purged from our churches and schools? Or can we all behave as brothers and sisters and have some meaningful discussions about a very seriously neglected aspect of doctrine? The Bible is and must be regarded as the final authority. The Baptist Faith and Message states that the Holy Bible is the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried. Sola Scriptura.