Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Ernie]

So, it seems he was saying that the Kingdom way of non-resistance is a main drawing of people to follow Christ by the showing of God's love. If this is true, how do we account for the lack of growth in many non-resistant churches aside from their having large families ?

It takes more than non-resistance to draw people towards Christ. But any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God.

This certainly has been one of the dividing issues in the Church but when it begins to sound like a salvation issue (i.e. 'not yet entered the Kingdom of God'), then I personally don't think it is 'rightly dividing the word of truth'. Taking any scripture verse and saying something like 'Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it' can be a dangerous way to approach using the scriptures.

I meant to say
"Any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw many folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God."

[Ernie]

Go ahead and visit Bahkmut. See what goes on there. See the hatred and the killing, the blood, the maiming. See the fear. Hear the cursing. See the destruction and evil.
(Things so raw and brutal, that television and YouTube do not show it, but offer heavily curated content instead. If American TV would show the raw reality of war, maybe Americans would not be so confused about the morality of the matter.)
See how all those good Orthodox Christians on each side are doing their best to kill each other. And come back and tell us again how wonderful it all is, how Orthodoxy is the right way to follow God, and how fighting war is compatible with following Christ.
There’s a lot of theorizing going on here about war and Orthodoxy. But remember, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is". - Yogi Berra

Every morning and many times a day, Orthodox members are praying to their god, asking him/it to help them blow up other Orthodox members and begging him to keep from getting blown up themselves. When in fact the One who they think they are praying to said His servants do not fight.
Might be time to listen to the war prayer again.

Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword. (Think division as mentioned in the OP)
The kind of division Jesus was referring to was not physical as in lobbing bombs at each other but rather a social/religious/spiritual sword.
The social/religious/spiritual sword divides between followers of Jesus and non-followers of Jesus. Jesus says you can tell who His people are by whether they follow his example and keep his commandments.

[Sudsy]

It takes more than non-resistance to draw people towards Christ. But any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God.

This certainly has been one of the dividing issues in the Church but when it begins to sound like a salvation issue (i.e. 'not yet entered the Kingdom of God'), then I personally don't think it is 'rightly dividing the word of truth'. Taking any scripture verse and saying something like 'Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it' can be a dangerous way to approach using the scriptures.

I meant to say
"Any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw many folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God."

I still find this confusing when you say 'churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God'. Perhaps we need a new thread on what is believed to be entering the Kingdom of God. Churches, as in local congregations, don't enter into the Kingdom of God but individuals who are born again do enter the Kingdom of God whether their local church preaches nonresistance or not. And not all who are members of a nonresistant teaching church are guaranteed to be members of the Kingdom of God.

NT scripture does often refer to what the Kingdom of God is like but I don't find any direct verse that requires a belief in nonresistance for anyone to have 'entered the Kingdom of God'. But I'm open to have this pointed to.

[Heirbyadoption]

This certainly has been one of the dividing issues in the Church but when it begins to sound like a salvation issue (i.e. 'not yet entered the Kingdom of God'), then I personally don't think it is 'rightly dividing the word of truth'. Taking any scripture verse and saying something like 'Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it' can be a dangerous way to approach using the scriptures.

I meant to say
"Any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw many folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God."

I still find this confusing when you say 'churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God'. Perhaps we need a new thread on what is believed to be entering the Kingdom of God. Churches, as in local congregations, don't enter into the Kingdom of God but individuals who are born again do enter the Kingdom of God whether their local church preaches nonresistance or not. And not all who are members of a nonresistant teaching church are guaranteed to be members of the Kingdom of God.

NT scripture does often refer to what the Kingdom of God is like but I don't find any direct verse that requires a belief in nonresistance for anyone to have 'entered the Kingdom of God'. But I'm open to have this pointed to.

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers teachings like literal nonresistance (such as taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 5) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

[Josh]

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers literal nonresistance (such as those things taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 18) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere to His teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

I have struggled with this as well - because it seems very clear in the scriptures to me, and also to be very clear in the teachings of the earliest church fathers. Yet I don't like to condemn and question other's experience with God. But this one is just so obvious to me...

[Sudsy]

I meant to say
"Any drawing without nonresistance is going to draw many folks into churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God."

I still find this confusing when you say 'churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God'. Perhaps we need a new thread on what is believed to be entering the Kingdom of God. Churches, as in local congregations, don't enter into the Kingdom of God but individuals who are born again do enter the Kingdom of God whether their local church preaches nonresistance or not. And not all who are members of a nonresistant teaching church are guaranteed to be members of the Kingdom of God.

NT scripture does often refer to what the Kingdom of God is like but I don't find any direct verse that requires a belief in nonresistance for anyone to have 'entered the Kingdom of God'. But I'm open to have this pointed to.

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers teachings like literal nonresistance (such as taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 18) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

Can you explain more about this in Matthew 18 ? Perhaps it is just my old brain that is missing what you are saying.

[Wade]

I begs the question what even is baptism then?

Maybe Catholics and Eastern Orthodox just don’t even view baptism close to what the Anabaptist’s and early church viewed it as?

Was it not partly a public testimony of a clear conscience with God? Don’t we see this in Scripture? - That takes Free will and personal choice. So what does baptizing an infant mean?

I will endeavor to be succinct and mind that this will not be a detailed dissertation on Catholic Rites of Christian Initiation. That would take up too much space for this forum.

You are right when speaking of our definitions being different and I believe it has as much to do with history as it does doctrine and theology.

Anabaptist World
There is one Sacrament for Christian Initiation into the fellowship and the life of a disciple: Baptism. This can take place in the teens or adult ages.

Catholic World
The RCI (Rite of Christian Initiation) is tripartite: it is not complete until all 3 sacraments are administered sequentially. It is not Baptism only.

Those 3 sacraments proceed in the following order:
1. Baptism (any age)

2. 1st Holy Communion

3. Confirmation (the earliest age for Confirmation in most USA dioceses is in the teens after they have received instruction).

Catholic teaching on Free Will is very much highlighted for teens and adults: they have the Free Will to continue instruction and to receive Holy communion and Confirmation to complete their Christian Initiation.

In Catholic World when children are baptised, the sacrament’s prayers involve a commitment by the parents and godparents to raise the child in the Faith.

I don’t mean to pick on you, as I appreciate your willingness to answer and explain. But, Peter did say part of baptism was a good conscience toward God.

1 Peter 3:21 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:

Makes it hard to accept infant baptism(baptism as we see it defined in Scripture) could be supported by Peter since infants cannot act or acknowledge a good conscience toward God…. And interestingly Peter is considered the first pope by the people supporting infant baptism….?

At least it seems reasonable to me with scripture like this why anyone could imagine people reading their bibles would reject infant baptism. Not in a desire to divide but to be true to following Christ.



And on a side note the first Anabaptist that we can find was actually maybe Paul:

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Heirbyadoption]

I still find this confusing when you say 'churches who have not yet entered the Kingdom of God'. Perhaps we need a new thread on what is believed to be entering the Kingdom of God. Churches, as in local congregations, don't enter into the Kingdom of God but individuals who are born again do enter the Kingdom of God whether their local church preaches nonresistance or not. And not all who are members of a nonresistant teaching church are guaranteed to be members of the Kingdom of God.

NT scripture does often refer to what the Kingdom of God is like but I don't find any direct verse that requires a belief in nonresistance for anyone to have 'entered the Kingdom of God'. But I'm open to have this pointed to.

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers teachings like literal nonresistance (such as taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 18) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

Can you explain more about this in Matthew 18 ? Perhaps it is just my old brain that is missing what you are saying.

It's my old brain, actually. Sorry. I have no idea why I typed 18. I was referring to Matthew 5. My apologies.

[MaxPC]

I begs the question what even is baptism then?

Maybe Catholics and Eastern Orthodox just don’t even view baptism close to what the Anabaptist’s and early church viewed it as?

Was it not partly a public testimony of a clear conscience with God? Don’t we see this in Scripture? - That takes Free will and personal choice. So what does baptizing an infant mean?

I will endeavor to be succinct and mind that this will not be a detailed dissertation on Catholic Rites of Christian Initiation. That would take up too much space for this forum.

You are right when speaking of our definitions being different and I believe it has as much to do with history as it does doctrine and theology.

Anabaptist World
There is one Sacrament for Christian Initiation into the fellowship and the life of a disciple: Baptism. This can take place in the teens or adult ages.

Catholic World
The RCI (Rite of Christian Initiation) is tripartite: it is not complete until all 3 sacraments are administered sequentially. It is not Baptism only.

Those 3 sacraments proceed in the following order:
1. Baptism (any age)

2. 1st Holy Communion

3. Confirmation (the earliest age for Confirmation in most USA dioceses is in the teens after they have received instruction).

Catholic teaching on Free Will is very much highlighted for teens and adults: they have the Free Will to continue instruction and to receive Holy communion and Confirmation to complete their Christian Initiation.

In Catholic World when children are baptised, the sacrament’s prayers involve a commitment by the parents and godparents to raise the child in the Faith.

I don’t mean to pick on you, as I appreciate your willingness to answer and explain. But, Peter did say part of baptism was a good conscience toward God.

1 Peter 3:21 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:

Makes it hard to accept infant baptism(baptism as we see it defined in Scripture) could be supported by Peter since infants cannot act or acknowledge a good conscience toward God…. And interestingly Peter is considered the first pope by the people supporting infant baptism….?

At least it seems reasonable to me with scripture like this why anyone could imagine people reading their bibles would reject infant baptism.



And on a side note the first Anabaptist that we can find was actually maybe Paul:

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We reference Peter when we are baptising adults who have converted. We recall baptism and Peter's words when a teen seeks the Sacrament of Confirmation.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy, perhaps Ernie considers teachings like literal nonresistance (such as taught by Jesus in Scriptures such as Matthew 18) to be straightforward enough in the Scriptures that any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship. But I'm just speculating on his thought process here, perhaps he can expand on that for us.

Can you explain more about this in Matthew 18 ? Perhaps it is just my old brain that is missing what you are saying.

It's my old brain, actually. Sorry. I have no idea why I typed 18. I was referring to Matthew 5. My apologies.

No problem. I had to read Matthew 18 over and over wondering what I was missing.

When you say 'any confession of Jesus as Lord which does not adhere at least to His explicit teachings is not a true/full submission to His Lordship', are you saying anyone that in some way does not fully submit to what Jesus said in Matthew 5, cannot be saved ? Is this your understanding ? For a few examples - if some brother calls another brother a 'fool' regarding something, he will lose his salvation. Or if a Christian has some lust in his heart for a woman not his wife he is guilty of adultery and will not be saved. Or if someone asks you for your car and/or home, you should just hand them over ? Or the final statement 'be perfect' and if you fail to be perfect in all your ways, you will not be saved ?

My view is that making Him Lord is recognizing He is Lord and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us but in doing this we will never be perfect in our following yet we will have a desire to become more and more like Him. I don't regard salvation as requiring perfect obedience or I doubt any one of us will be saved. My understanding on many things, including participating in war to stop up evil, is not refusing to recognize Him as Lord. It may be a mis-understanding of my role in standing up against evil but I don't regard this a salvation issue.

I'm pushing back on what I understand to not be living as a Kingdom citizen which I think is like saying, one is not saved.