Is non-resistance a required belief to be a sincere Christian believer?

[ohio jones]

One thing about Anabaptism I have always appreciated is the reluctance to speak boldly about things that are not entirely clear, such as the exact point of apostasy. I think this is part of the reason we have not warmed up to systematic theology. It's Ok to practice with confidence and certainty on being within God's will without clear judgement on believers who differ.

I agree, but I would be interested in knowing when and how this became part of our mindset. We certainly didn't get it from Menno.

[Soloist]

Wife: Aparently, this didn’t post the first time, but while I would be hesitant to say that the specific Anabaptist interpretation of nonresistance is essential to be a sincere Christian, I do think that Jesus makes it crystal clear that practicing His teaching on forgiveness is a requirement if we want God to forgive our sins.

[JohnH]

Wife: Aparently, this didn’t post the first time, but while I would be hesitant to say that the specific Anabaptist interpretation of nonresistance is essential to be a sincere Christian, I do think that Jesus makes it crystal clear that practicing His teaching on forgiveness is a requirement if we want God to forgive our sins.

My question specifically didn't limit it to Anabaptist interpretations (and this is in the general theology section). My question is just aimed at the idea of believing in some kind of nonresistance, acknowledging their are quite a few different interpretations of it.

That's contrasted, though, to prevailing doctrines that the NT doesn't teach a general nonresistant principle (for example, amongst Apostolic Pentecostals, they would teach that the Sermon on the Mount only applied to the specific people it was being preached to; Reformed folks would say that the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to make sure we know it is impossible to actually obey all that stuff and thus we have to accept salvation by grace).

[Soloist]

Wife: Aparently, this didn’t post the first time, but while I would be hesitant to say that the specific Anabaptist interpretation of nonresistance is essential to be a sincere Christian, I do think that Jesus makes it crystal clear that practicing His teaching on forgiveness is a requirement if we want God to forgive our sins.

My question specifically didn't limit it to Anabaptist interpretations (and this is in the general theology section). My question is just aimed at the idea of believing in some kind of nonresistance, acknowledging their are quite a few different interpretations of it.

That's contrasted, though, to prevailing doctrines that the NT doesn't teach a general nonresistant principle (for example, amongst Apostolic Pentecostals, they would teach that the Sermon on the Mount only applied to the specific people it was being preached to; Reformed folks would say that the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to make sure we know it is impossible to actually obey all that stuff and thus we have to accept salvation by grace).

Wife: yeah, I’ve talked to some Baptists that are hard-core dispensationalist where nothing Jesus said, or that happened before Paul actually matters, and to believe that it does seems to be the only thing that will lose your salvation. Although it would be hard to find something that was taught by Jesus that wasn’t later repeated by Paul or one of the others.

What I’m saying is, I’m not sure if I can judge someone who believes in military or other defense ect, especially because everybody is on a different point in their walk. I still wouldn’t say that I would think it’s a safe position to have. But forgiveness of others seems to be a core tenant of Christianity, so I would seriously doubt the sincerity of someone who was unwilling to let go of a grudge or openly hates people.Ultimately, I’m not the decider, but that particular doctrine is written out pretty clearly.

[Neto]

There are various ways through which various Christians (from our perspective) "excuse themselves" from Jesus' teachings encapsulated in the "sermon on the mount".

Two I've heard are:
1) That is the way it will be during the 1,000 year reign of Jesus on earth, that it isn't for today, except for #2.
2) It is the "rule book" for the way Christians should act toward one another now, and will later be universal during the reign of Christ on this earth.

Neither view takes it as applicable for all human interactions between Christians and non-believers.

[Ernie]

Wife: Aparently, this didn’t post the first time, but while I would be hesitant to say that the specific Anabaptist interpretation of nonresistance is essential to be a sincere Christian, I do think that Jesus makes it crystal clear that practicing His teaching on forgiveness is a requirement if we want God to forgive our sins.

My question specifically didn't limit it to Anabaptist interpretations (and this is in the general theology section). My question is just aimed at the idea of believing in some kind of nonresistance, acknowledging their are quite a few different interpretations of it.

I think it is possible to be sincere and devout in one's beliefs and yet have some very bad theology. That is how I look at folks who profess Christianity but don't follow the teachings of Jesus. This critique applies to Anabaptists and non-Anabaptists alike, including me sometimes.

[cmbl]

Jesus said that whoever hears his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount and does them will be like a wise man, who, when building a house, dug deep and built the foundation on the rock. When the storm came, the wind and the waves beat against that house, but it was not destroyed, because it was founded on the rock. Whoever hears his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount and does not do them will be like a foolish man, who, when building a house, laid the foundation on the sand. When the storm came, the wind and waves beat against that house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined.

According to Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount is not optional.

I can remember when I first noticed this - I was in college at the time.
I was raised Evangelical. On the one hand, the high view of the Bible that was handed to me made me able, when I noticed this, to recognize it as the message of God. On the other hand, why did I get to college before noticing this?

[barnhart]

There are various ways through which various Christians (from our perspective) "excuse themselves" from Jesus' teachings encapsulated in the "sermon on the mount".

Two I've heard are:
1) That is the way it will be during the 1,000 year reign of Jesus on earth, that it isn't for today, except for #2.
2) It is the "rule book" for the way Christians should act toward one another now, and will later be universal during the reign of Christ on this earth.

Neither view takes it as applicable for all human interactions between Christians and non-believers.

J.H. Yoder (still not sure how to interact with his writing) opens his famous book The Politics of Jesus with a "sixfold case for the irrelevance of Jesus". Those two are included along with other ideas like a Plato-ist division of the material vs. the immaterial where Jesus is shepherding the soul but not necessarily the material world or division between small group cultural face to face interactions and relationships with foreigners.

This captured my attention so powerfully that I have never been quite the same. I found it galvanizing because it was not learning something foreign but seeing something in well written print that I had known/ been taught indirectly my whole life. I have taken this understanding, the present authority of Jesus, as the guiding light to authentic faith at a time when I was wondering about baggage of church tradition that I have inherited.

If the present authority of Jesus is elevated, knowing and understanding him are also elevated and other programs fall into the background, things like demanding ownership of cultures, nations, churches, houses and lands and even families command less authority to mold behavior.

[JimFoxvog]

I think one can be a sincere Christian believer, yet not properly understand all Biblical teachings. The Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective says,

As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service.

I agree this is the proper behavior of a disciple.

[Ernie]

Jesus said that whoever hears his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount and does them will be like a wise man, who, when building a house, dug deep and built the foundation on the rock. When the storm came, the wind and the waves beat against that house, but it was not destroyed, because it was founded on the rock. Whoever hears his sayings in the Sermon on the Mount and does not do them will be like a foolish man, who, when building a house, laid the foundation on the sand. When the storm came, the wind and waves beat against that house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined.

According to Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount is not optional.

I can remember when I first noticed this - I was in college at the time.
I was raised Evangelical. On the one hand, the high view of the Bible that was handed to me made me able, when I noticed this, to recognize it as the message of God. On the other hand, why did I get to college before noticing this?

Thanks for sharing this again. When I think of Evangelicals who have left Evangelicalism, and what caused them to leave, I often think of you.

I think many people from all denominations at one time or another in their life have had the sort of experience you had. (The average person does not think much for themselves and thinks inside a bubble.) But there are always sincere believers across the spectrum who have light bulb moments when they think, "Why does our church teach or practice (or not teach or practice)_____________ whenever the Bible says ______________?"
1. Some quash the question in their minds because the cost of changing one's belief or practice is too uncomfortable to think about further.
2. Some fall back on church theology/tradition and don't question it much after that.
3. Some are disturbed by it the rest of their life, but still stay with their church.
4. Some change their own belief/practice and/or change churches.