I think you are misrepresenting my comments and forcing them into a false dichotomy. There are two kingdoms; St. Augustine is the best orator on this topic with his book The City of God. I do not think, though, that humans are universally incapable of participating in the kingdom of God when they participate in civil hierarchical structures. As an example of this, I present the Russian saints, the Passion-bearers Boris and Gleb. Being princes of Vladimir the Great and heirs to the throne, they were very political figures. Would you say that they are participating in the kingdom of God? Were they separate?NedFlanders wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:03 pm I think from what I understand from your comments is that you don’t have the understanding that the gospel that Jesus taught was the gospel of the kingdom of God.
Correct me if I’m wrong!
I think tells us many times and Paul that there are two kingdoms - God’s and the world’s. We are called to be separate.
From John 18:36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
My point all along is that we should be wary when using modern categories to work out teachings of 2000 years ago. However, you do not seem concerned with that and its consequences, but seem more worried about preserving your church from the influence of the state. Which is fine! Anabaptists have strong reasons for wanting to preserve that distinction.
So, instead of arguing about whether one of us cares/understands the Kingdom of God (however that is defined), I think we should discuss whether or not human civil government can be redeemed by God. @Ned, do you think the Kingdom of God and human civil government are diametrically opposed to one another? Or do you think that the Kingdom of God can redeem civil government and be made a part of the Kingdom of God?