Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 9
Bercot says the Anabaptists taught salvation is a gift, yet “conditional…which can be taken away from the disobedient,” and they rejected predestination in favor of real human choice; how does that combination (gift + condition + responsibility) confront common evangelical instincts about assurance, grace, and “faith alone,” and where do you feel internal pushback?
Another way to ask: How does the idea that salvation is a gift but can be lost through disobedience, and that people have real choice, challenge common evangelical views about assurance, grace, and “faith alone”? Where do you feel resistance to that idea inside yourself?

Direct Answer According to Bercot, the Anabaptists held together God’s gracious gift and the believer’s responsibility to obey, insisting disobedience can forfeit the gift. That confronts instincts that treat “faith alone” as making obedience optional or making assurance automatic regardless of how someone lives.

Support from Transcript:

  • He notes “salvation by faith alone was the slogan of the Reformation,” but Anabaptists taught “obedience was also essential for salvation.”
  • They did not teach salvation is “earned by accumulating good works,” and they rejected Catholic “ritual works of self-justification.”
  • They “stressed the fact that salvation is a gift from God,” yet “a conditional gift, which can be taken away from the disobedient.”
  • Bercot says their salvation doctrine was “very similar to that of the early church.”
  • They “completely rejected the doctrine of predestination,” teaching salvation is “open to everyone” and each person chooses to accept or reject God’s provisions.
Discussion Follow-ups How do you keep “gift” from turning into self-salvation, while also keeping “obedience” from being treated as optional or merely symbolic?