Nonresistance and 2 Kingdom Scripture Foundation?

[Wade]

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.

Sorry it wasn't worded well enough. I meant to say a word of caution to you Max - not that you said anything wrong. You asked for help in understanding the Anabaptist foundation for understanding some of these things in the OP. Well, I am no expert I did not feel comfortable that Kai's answer or now his explanation is sufficient in helping you understand what you are asking. I appreciate some of his ideas and efforts but I think he is off the mark - the example of Christ dying on the cross was an act of non-resistance as far as I understand the original Anabaptists would understand non-resistance for example.

I believed in harming bad people when I first accepted Christ and the book that convinced me personally to accept Jesus' words of not-resisting evil and changed my view of who God is was: Love as Jesus Taught it. A Treatise on Love as the Biblical Basis for Christian Nonresistance and its Practical Applications by Fred Nighswander
https://www.milestonebooks.com/item/11-5001/
In the book you will find an explanation why things like God resisting the proud but yet calling us to not resist evil can make sense.

[Kai]

Wade and Max, I do not want to make an important Bible doctrine unnecessarily confusing.

I believe that nonresistance/suffering love is absolutely imperative to Christianity. We are called to emulate Christ example on this earth, including the example He left on the cross.

Please do not let my earlier comments distract anyone from the beauty of this example!

[Wade]

Wade and Max, I do not want to make an important Bible doctrine unnecessarily confusing.

I believe that nonresistance/suffering love is absolutely imperative to Christianity. We are called to emulate Christ example on this earth, including the example He left on the cross.

Please do not let my earlier comments distract anyone from the beauty of this example!

I appreciate your point about God being unchanging and of course I agree with that. I do however believe that our accountability to Him can change by how much He has revealed Himself to us. My point was more that you seem to be defining nonresistance in a way that I am completely unfamiliar with that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you defined what it means to you in a sentence your comment would be understandable but if nonresistance is defined by Christ in the full context with saying to bless them that curse you, love your enemies, and etc. then there is a major disconnect with things you said. Should we not define things how Christ did? Or should we avoid the word nonresistance since he didn't say it specifically and therefore people just define it how they like?

And I've heard some manuscripts say to not resist the evil person, in the sense of retaliation toward a person. I see no calling to not hate sin, in fact I believe Christ to be saying to hate sin and evil but to love the sinner. Without some vision for the kingdom of God it is easily misunderstood.

[Neto]

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.
....
... 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!

In my understanding of this 'paradox', the distinction is that not only does God resist evil, but we are told to do so as well.
A few of comments:
1) There is a difference between resisting (fighting against) evil, and resisting or fighting against those who do evil. (An aside: I'm recalling what it was like to plead with a father, a new Christian, to not take justice into his own hands against the young man who had shot & killed his son just a few days before, to allow God to take care of that. This was in a tribal setting in the Amazon, and it was the father's cultural RESPONSIBILITY to kill the perpetrator.)
2) Scripture tell us that our enemy is not flesh & blood, it is the evil spiritual powers, and so the battle we wage, not one of non-resistance, is carried out with weapons that are also not of the earthly realm.
3) Jesus told Pilate that "Now but my kingdom is not from here." The word 'now' is the first word in that statement, very possibly for emphasis. Looking at Jesus' other prophecies, he DOES talk of a time of judgement, and in the book of the Revelation a time of judgement & war is described. I'm not at all sure that "non-resistance" is what might be called an "eternal value" - it is just "for NOW". Also, when, as a former "activist pacifist" (who was formerly a raging patriot), and having then become a simple pacifist, I first heard the term 'non-resistance', I was not impressed. I felt that it obscured the fact that we ARE to be resisting evil in the spiritual realm, with spiritual weapons, but laying aside all efforts to use physical weapons (AND POLITICAL 'weapons', like political power, demonstrations, and civil disobedience). As I commented elsewhere, I am not convinced that we, as followers of Christ, the coming King, will not be a part of that Army of God spoken of in the Revelation of Christ. [This understanding may not be reflected in early anabaptist thought - I haven't specifically looked for it. But I will say that a call for God's justice (similar to what we read in many of the Psalms, and in the Prophets) does come through, perhaps especially in Martyrs' Mirror.]

[silentreader]

Wade and Max, I do not want to make an important Bible doctrine unnecessarily confusing.

I believe that nonresistance/suffering love is absolutely imperative to Christianity. We are called to emulate Christ example on this earth, including the example He left on the cross.

Please do not let my earlier comments distract anyone from the beauty of this example!

I appreciate your point about God being unchanging and of course I agree with that. I do however believe that our accountability to Him can change by how much He has revealed Himself to us. My point was more that you seem to be defining nonresistance in a way that I am completely unfamiliar with that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you defined what it means to you in a sentence your comment would be understandable but if nonresistance is defined by Christ in the full context with saying to bless them that curse you, love your enemies, and etc. then there is a major disconnect with things you said. Should we not define things how Christ did? Or should we avoid the word nonresistance since he didn't say it specifically and therefore people just define it how they like?

And I've heard some manuscripts say to not resist the evil person, in the sense of retaliation toward a person. I see no calling to not hate sin, in fact I believe Christ to be saying to hate sin and evil but to love the sinner. Without some vision for the kingdom of God it is easily misunderstood.

There is sometimes discussion about Jesus driving the money-changers and their wares out of the Temple courtyard. I believe this illustrates the difference between God's necessary response to evil, whether immediate or deferred, and the responsibility on us, His servants, to follow his teachings on personal non-resistance. The big difference is His Holiness and our holiness. An affront to us is something that we are also capable of doing to others, the episode in the Temple was an affront to the presence of the Holiness of God, and so needed to be dealt with by Someone Holy enough to have that authority.

[Wade]

Wade and Max, I do not want to make an important Bible doctrine unnecessarily confusing.

I believe that nonresistance/suffering love is absolutely imperative to Christianity. We are called to emulate Christ example on this earth, including the example He left on the cross.

Please do not let my earlier comments distract anyone from the beauty of this example!

I appreciate your point about God being unchanging and of course I agree with that. I do however believe that our accountability to Him can change by how much He has revealed Himself to us. My point was more that you seem to be defining nonresistance in a way that I am completely unfamiliar with that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you defined what it means to you in a sentence your comment would be understandable but if nonresistance is defined by Christ in the full context with saying to bless them that curse you, love your enemies, and etc. then there is a major disconnect with things you said. Should we not define things how Christ did? Or should we avoid the word nonresistance since he didn't say it specifically and therefore people just define it how they like?

And I've heard some manuscripts say to not resist the evil person, in the sense of retaliation toward a person. I see no calling to not hate sin, in fact I believe Christ to be saying to hate sin and evil but to love the sinner. Without some vision for the kingdom of God it is easily misunderstood.

There is sometimes discussion about Jesus driving the money-changers and their wares out of the Temple courtyard. I believe this illustrates the difference between God's necessary response to evil, whether immediate or deferred, and the responsibility on us, His servants, to follow his teachings on personal non-resistance. The big difference is His Holiness and our holiness. An affront to us is something that we are also capable of doing to others, the episode in the Temple was an affront to the presence of the Holiness of God, and so needed to be dealt with by Someone Holy enough to have that authority.

That's right. Judgement can only be done by the sinless One. But judgement doesn't contradict nonresistance as I see it because God is delivering justice as again the only one that can for the choices those people made. He still allowed it to be their choice.

And as far as not dealing punishment out myself. As someone who was an atheist for 25years letting God deal it does help people a little but what changed me and in my experience has made some of my atheist friends and new Christians and seekers is referencing the Lord's prayer and pointing out we will only be forgiving as much as we are forgiven. We do deserve hell and damnation as soon as we sin so we are no better than the next person and need to look deeper into how much God for Jesus Christ sake has forgiven us.

[silentreader]

I appreciate your point about God being unchanging and of course I agree with that. I do however believe that our accountability to Him can change by how much He has revealed Himself to us. My point was more that you seem to be defining nonresistance in a way that I am completely unfamiliar with that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you defined what it means to you in a sentence your comment would be understandable but if nonresistance is defined by Christ in the full context with saying to bless them that curse you, love your enemies, and etc. then there is a major disconnect with things you said. Should we not define things how Christ did? Or should we avoid the word nonresistance since he didn't say it specifically and therefore people just define it how they like?

And I've heard some manuscripts say to not resist the evil person, in the sense of retaliation toward a person. I see no calling to not hate sin, in fact I believe Christ to be saying to hate sin and evil but to love the sinner. Without some vision for the kingdom of God it is easily misunderstood.

There is sometimes discussion about Jesus driving the money-changers and their wares out of the Temple courtyard. I believe this illustrates the difference between God's necessary response to evil, whether immediate or deferred, and the responsibility on us, His servants, to follow his teachings on personal non-resistance. The big difference is His Holiness and our holiness. An affront to us is something that we are also capable of doing to others, the episode in the Temple was an affront to the presence of the Holiness of God, and so needed to be dealt with by Someone Holy enough to have that authority.

That's right. Judgement can only be done by the sinless One. But judgement doesn't contradict nonresistance as I see it because God is delivering justice as again the only one that can for the choices those people made. He still allowed it to be their choice.

And as far as not dealing punishment out myself. As someone who was an atheist for 25years letting God deal it does help people a little but what changed me and in my experience has made some of my atheist friends and new Christians and seekers is referencing the Lord's prayer and pointing out we will only be forgiving as much as we are forgiven. We do deserve hell and damnation as soon as we sin so we are no better than the next person and need to look deeper into how much God for Jesus Christ sake has forgiven us.

I think non-resistance is first of all about personal relationships and expands outward from there.
I believe non-resistance must be based on the "Golden Rule"..."Do unto others..."
Because of God's perfect righteousness, His mercy and His justice do not contradict each other.

[PetrChelcicky]

I didn't follow this thread. I just want to express my thanks to barnhart who made clearer why people (like him and me) are doubtful about the Two Kingdom Formula.
And please take into account that Luther was much more close to early Anabaptism than we. And the Two Kingdom Formula in Anabaptism and Lutheranism did probably develop in a theological exchange - only I don't know if Luther or the pre-Anabaptist "prophets" (like Muentzer) started it.

[MaxPC]

I didn't follow this thread. I just want to express my thanks to barnhart who made clearer why people (like him and me) are doubtful about the Two Kingdom Formula.
And please take into account that Luther was much more close to early Anabaptism than we. And the Two Kingdom Formula in Anabaptism and Lutheranism did probably develop in a theological exchange - only I don't know if Luther or the pre-Anabaptist "prophets" (like Muentzer) started it.

I feel it is safe to say that all faith groups and traditions who call the Bible their holy book do draw inspiration and ideas from each other via direct and indirect communication, formal or informal. No Christian group of which I am aware spontaneously generated nor leaped from the head of a giant completely formed .

[Wade]

Max, have you listened to David Bercots audio on The Kingdom of God? '
I've found this really helpful and also in giving out to people in their walk with God too.
[video][/video]