Nonresistance and 2 Kingdom Scripture Foundation?

[MaxPC]

Luther used the terms God's "left handed kingdom" and his "right handed kingdom". This is a two kingdom theology but not an Anabaptist theology. This is why I am nervous to hear Anabaptist speak of "dual" citizenship, meaning heavenly and earthly. This is far too close to the Lutheran model and will likely fail to protect from nationalism just as Lutheran theology did not provide a robust, unified critique of the third reich.

Like Petr, I prefer to be a heavenly citizen and let the chips fall where they may. I had a mini crisis when the border policies changed and I could no longer visit Canadian family without a passport. This was the first time I was forced to claim US citizenship. My wife snickers quietly when the border agents ask if I am a citizen and I answer "I was born here."

For a scriptural basis, I would look to the prophets who foretold a ruler and a kingdom, coupled with Matt.5-7 as the founding document of that ruler and his kingdom.

If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that the current Two Kingdom theology allows for one to have a foot in the world's culture and one to have a foot in God's kingdom? Is that correct?

The kingdom of God is “the realm where His will is done” The only place this can happen is in a person who is filled with God’s Spirit. You can notice in the Gospels that Jesus, John the Baptist and the disciples all preached that the kingdom of God was “at hand” or close by. It was not yet present in the Gospels. After Pentecost this tense changes to the kingdom being present.
God’s will for humanity is that they would carry His image into the world. You can see this in God’s stated purpose for man in Genesis 1. Man without God’s Spirit is unable to show God to the world by doing God’s will. When the Spirit is given man is able to do the will of the King, hence the “kingdom” of God

As far as the 2 kingdom understanding. In the 2nd temptation of Jesus, Satan claimed possession of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus never contested Satan’s ownership of them. The kingdom of God is at war with all the kingdoms of this world. It is this conflict that makes the dual-citizenship argument unworkable. I can hold citizenship in 2 countries but if those 2 countries are at war with each other than I must choose which nation I will fight for and which I will fight against.

Nonresistance to me hinges on 2 principles.
#1 We are called to bear the nature of Christ, He insists on giving me free choice so I also am unable to coerce others against their will.
#2 God is love, Vengeance is not His nature but rather is His possession Deuteronomy 32:35 Psalm 94:1 and Hebrews 10:30
Romans 12:19 specifically requires that we do not engage in vengeance but leave that to God.

Nonresistance is not part of God’s nature. He has given us a day of grace for an opportunity to repent and avoid vengeance for our sin. Who am I to shorten someone’s day of grace?

Kai, would Ephesians 5 be a support Scripture for your thoughts on this?

Ephesians 5
5 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Renounce Pagan Ways
3 But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; 13 but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. 14 Therefore it is said,
“Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give you light.”[a]
15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20 always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.

[Neto]

I suspect that different people use all of these terms in different ways, or at least ending with different applications. (Terms like "two kingdom theology", "dual Kingdoms", even "Kingdom of God", and "non-resistance".) As I grew up I absorbed (not sure where from) a mentality that there were two kingdoms, and that as Christians we are citizens of both, and that we bear a responsibility to "live out our allegiance to the Kingdom of God as loyal and responsible citizens of the earthly kingdom in which we live", that is, interpreted as the nation to which we belong. But in respect to early anabaptism, I would note that the concept of "national identity" was not well developed at that time - Germany, for instance, did not yet exist as a nation, not until much later, actually. So this national identity definition is something different. It seems to me that the idea then was more of the earthly "kingdom" as in the world system that did not recognize Christ as King. This difference may be why so many Americans, those who believe that "The USA was founded on Christian principles and is therefore a 'Christian Nation'," can unite the two in the phrase "God and Country".
Maybe my unease with the term "two kingdom theology" comes from this background of thought. That is, that I prefer to speak of "single kingdom allegiance", as an application of the Scripture where Jesus states that we can only server one master (whether we speak of God & mammon, or God & Country). But some (including my wife) think that I should still PARTICIPATE in the earthly governmental 'kingdom' - if I want to be a 'good citizen' of the Kingdom of God. But I see too many examples of how my own people were drawn farther and farther into this 'participation' to the point that their real practical allegiance lay with that kingdom, rather than with the Kingdom of God, and more importantly, with its King, Jesus.

[barnhart]

If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that the current Two Kingdom theology allows for one to have a foot in the world's culture and one to have a foot in God's kingdom? Is that correct?

Or maybe it allows one to imagine they can keep a foot in both. Ultimately this is not possible. One king will root out the other. I think Neto explained it well.

[MaxPC]

I suspect that different people use all of these terms in different ways, or at least ending with different applications. (Terms like "two kingdom theology", "dual Kingdoms", even "Kingdom of God", and "non-resistance".) As I grew up I absorbed (not sure where from) a mentality that there were two kingdoms, and that as Christians we are citizens of both, and that we bear a responsibility to "live out our allegiance to the Kingdom of God as loyal and responsible citizens of the earthly kingdom in which we live", that is, interpreted as the nation to which we belong. But in respect to early anabaptism, I would note that the concept of "national identity" was not well developed at that time - Germany, for instance, did not yet exist as a nation, not until much later, actually. So this national identity definition is something different. It seems to me that the idea then was more of the earthly "kingdom" as in the world system that did not recognize Christ as King. This difference may be why so many Americans, those who believe that "The USA was founded on Christian principles and is therefore a 'Christian Nation'," can unite the two in the phrase "God and Country".
Maybe my unease with the term "two kingdom theology" comes from this background of thought. That is, that I prefer to speak of "single kingdom allegiance", as an application of the Scripture where Jesus states that we can only server one master (whether we speak of God & mammon, or God & Country). But some (including my wife) think that I should still PARTICIPATE in the earthly governmental 'kingdom' - if I want to be a 'good citizen' of the Kingdom of God. But I see too many examples of how my own people were drawn farther and farther into this 'participation' to the point that their real practical allegiance lay with that kingdom, rather than with the Kingdom of God, and more importantly, with its King, Jesus.

Thank you, Neto. That helps quite a bit.

Or maybe it allows one to imagine they can keep a foot in both. Ultimately this is not possible. One king will root out the other. I think Neto explained it well.

I agree, Neto did it well. I like your summation too. It reminds me of Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

and Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

[Wade]

The kingdom of God is “the realm where His will is done” The only place this can happen is in a person who is filled with God’s Spirit. You can notice in the Gospels that Jesus, John the Baptist and the disciples all preached that the kingdom of God was “at hand” or close by. It was not yet present in the Gospels. After Pentecost this tense changes to the kingdom being present.
God’s will for humanity is that they would carry His image into the world. You can see this in God’s stated purpose for man in Genesis 1. Man without God’s Spirit is unable to show God to the world by doing God’s will. When the Spirit is given man is able to do the will of the King, hence the “kingdom” of God

As far as the 2 kingdom understanding. In the 2nd temptation of Jesus, Satan claimed possession of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus never contested Satan’s ownership of them. The kingdom of God is at war with all the kingdoms of this world. It is this conflict that makes the dual-citizenship argument unworkable. I can hold citizenship in 2 countries but if those 2 countries are at war with each other than I must choose which nation I will fight for and which I will fight against.

Nonresistance to me hinges on 2 principles.
#1 We are called to bear the nature of Christ, He insists on giving me free choice so I also am unable to coerce others against their will.
#2 God is love, Vengeance is not His nature but rather is His possession Deuteronomy 32:35 Psalm 94:1 and Hebrews 10:30
Romans 12:19 specifically requires that we do not engage in vengeance but leave that to God.

Nonresistance is not part of God’s nature. He has given us a day of grace for an opportunity to repent and avoid vengeance for our sin. Who am I to shorten someone’s day of grace?

Max I'd be careful with comments like these saying "nonresistance is not part of God's nature.". Go to the scripture and where Christ talks about "not resisting evil," it is a long discourse on loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you, and etc. So well other people have thoughts about what non-resistance is - I believe Christ means we are to not engage in retaliation but rather to continue in suffering love and I believe that is what the original Anabaptists meant by the term non-resistance.

[Neto]

The kingdom of God is “the realm where His will is done” The only place this can happen is in a person who is filled with God’s Spirit. You can notice in the Gospels that Jesus, John the Baptist and the disciples all preached that the kingdom of God was “at hand” or close by. It was not yet present in the Gospels. After Pentecost this tense changes to the kingdom being present.
God’s will for humanity is that they would carry His image into the world. You can see this in God’s stated purpose for man in Genesis 1. Man without God’s Spirit is unable to show God to the world by doing God’s will. When the Spirit is given man is able to do the will of the King, hence the “kingdom” of God

As far as the 2 kingdom understanding. In the 2nd temptation of Jesus, Satan claimed possession of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus never contested Satan’s ownership of them. The kingdom of God is at war with all the kingdoms of this world. It is this conflict that makes the dual-citizenship argument unworkable. I can hold citizenship in 2 countries but if those 2 countries are at war with each other than I must choose which nation I will fight for and which I will fight against.

Nonresistance to me hinges on 2 principles.
#1 We are called to bear the nature of Christ, He insists on giving me free choice so I also am unable to coerce others against their will.
#2 God is love, Vengeance is not His nature but rather is His possession Deuteronomy 32:35 Psalm 94:1 and Hebrews 10:30
Romans 12:19 specifically requires that we do not engage in vengeance but leave that to God.

Nonresistance is not part of God’s nature. He has given us a day of grace for an opportunity to repent and avoid vengeance for our sin. Who am I to shorten someone’s day of grace?

Max I'd be careful with comments like these saying "nonresistance is not part of God's nature.". Go to the scripture and where Christ talks about "not resisting evil," it is a long discourse on loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you, and etc. So well other people have thoughts about what non-resistance is - I believe Christ means we are to not engage in retaliation but rather to continue in suffering love and I believe that is what the original Anabaptists meant by the term non-resistance.

Wade, I wondered about that statement as well, but was puzzled, thinking it might have been a typing error. (Because just above that comment Kai says "#2 God is love, Vengeance is not His nature....") I couldn't make sense of it.

[MaxPC]

The kingdom of God is “the realm where His will is done” The only place this can happen is in a person who is filled with God’s Spirit. You can notice in the Gospels that Jesus, John the Baptist and the disciples all preached that the kingdom of God was “at hand” or close by. It was not yet present in the Gospels. After Pentecost this tense changes to the kingdom being present.
God’s will for humanity is that they would carry His image into the world. You can see this in God’s stated purpose for man in Genesis 1. Man without God’s Spirit is unable to show God to the world by doing God’s will. When the Spirit is given man is able to do the will of the King, hence the “kingdom” of God

As far as the 2 kingdom understanding. In the 2nd temptation of Jesus, Satan claimed possession of all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus never contested Satan’s ownership of them. The kingdom of God is at war with all the kingdoms of this world. It is this conflict that makes the dual-citizenship argument unworkable. I can hold citizenship in 2 countries but if those 2 countries are at war with each other than I must choose which nation I will fight for and which I will fight against.

Nonresistance to me hinges on 2 principles.
#1 We are called to bear the nature of Christ, He insists on giving me free choice so I also am unable to coerce others against their will.
#2 God is love, Vengeance is not His nature but rather is His possession Deuteronomy 32:35 Psalm 94:1 and Hebrews 10:30
Romans 12:19 specifically requires that we do not engage in vengeance but leave that to God.

Nonresistance is not part of God’s nature. He has given us a day of grace for an opportunity to repent and avoid vengeance for our sin. Who am I to shorten someone’s day of grace?

Max I'd be careful with comments like these saying "nonresistance is not part of God's nature.". Go to the scripture and where Christ talks about "not resisting evil," it is a long discourse on loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you, and etc. So well other people have thoughts about what non-resistance is - I believe Christ means we are to not engage in retaliation but rather to continue in suffering love and I believe that is what the original Anabaptists meant by the term non-resistance.

Wade, if you will go back through to the original posts you will see that it was not me who said that.

[Kai]

Explanation time!
Why do I say God is not nonresistant? I can see how that could be confusing with my point of Him being a God of love.

While God is a God of love He is also a God of holiness. His nature of holiness demands a hatred for sin. Ever since Satan sinned in heaven and Adam sinned in the garden God's hatred for sin and His punishment of it has been on display.

I find it impossible to read the OT and argue that God is a nonresistant God. I find it hard to read Revelations where God is storing up His anger until He will release it without mixture on sinners and argue that God is a God of nonresistance. For God to be nonresistant now He must be a God who changes. God is unchanging. I do not believe He changed between the OT and the NT and I do not believe He will change again at the end of time.

As I mentioned earlier, Vengeance is God's possession. He uses it in His own time. I feel that time is when God in His omniscience knows man will not change. He has specifically withholden His vengeance from us:
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. This is the one part of what He does that we are not allowed to participate in. Largely, I believe, because we are unable to know His timing.

Jesus was our perfect example as a man. He laid down, along with the other privileges of being God, the right to vengeance. We are called to follow His example of suffering love, enduring persecution, etc.

I think this is important for several reasons. First, as I mentioned earlier, I find it necessary to use some tricky hermeneutics to portray God as a God who doesn't resist evil. Secondly, if I am to follow God in everything than at some point I also can begin resisting evil and thirdly a God who doesn't have any penalty for evil is not much to be feared at the judgment.

I'm glad to have my thoughts critiqued and questioned. It is iron sharpening iron!

[RZehr]

James 4:6b says-
“God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

[Kai]

Kai, would Ephesians 5 be a support Scripture for your thoughts on this?


]

Yes, it definitely could be along with many others such as;
1Co_12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

This verse and many others point us to the reality that we ARE the body, not merely a reflection. We are called to be Jesus to the world. He forgave endlessly, suffered unjustly and ultimately died. In all this He still loved them and prayed for their forgiveness.
God does not desire to punish humanity but in His holy hatred for sin He will punish sin that is not repented of and turned away from 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.