Q&A with an Anabaptist

First topic message reminder :

You might find my beliefs interesting. Or fascinating. Or maddening. All depends. Ask anything.

No, I mean that certain things are wrong based on people's consciences.

Sorry for butting into your Q&A, Phat, but Blitz, don't you see a number of problems with that statement? (About consciences.)

As to healings, yes, we do approve of them. We have healing masses and even an oil specifically for the purpose. (Though of course, people are often not healed physically.)

As to tongues, both my parents speak in tongues.

I was meant in grey areas like drinking.

Jehoshaphat wrote:If there is no visible structure then how can we know, for certain, who can accurately interpret the Bible?

I would say the ones who we can depend on to an extent to accurately interpret the Bible would be the early Christian Church. The ones who were closest to Jesus. This is not to say they were perfect and infallible. But I do think what they believed was important. 

@Pound Cake This is MY Q and A, not Jeho's. 

What about in circumstances where the Early Church didn't say what it believed? How are there different denominations if the Early Church was always correct? Did the interpreting authority of the Early Church end after a specified time? There are major problems with that thesis and with private interpretation. You have to accept that God wouldn't leave his Church stranded without someone or something to interpret the Bible accurately throughout the centuries, not just for the first few hundred years.

If the Early Church did not clarify, either A. It's not important enough B. You can find the answer easily enough in scripture.

There are different denominations because there people are different. No person finds God in the same way as everyone else. Each encounter is different. This is not to say differences within Christ's bride are OK. They aren't. But I respect the way God uses different people, and different cultures, and different ways of worship all to glorify Him. Heresy is heresy, and sin is sin. It's wrong, and it has crept into many many churches. But how can I say my way is the only way to God? That is never specified in scripture. Jesus is the only way to God, and there is no correct stereotype in finding Him. 

I believe the Early Church fell into heresy after a few centuries. And no, Christ did not leave His Church stranded. Realize His Church is NOT a denomination, but anyone part of the Kingdom of God. If someone is saved by Christ, and continues to live in repentance, they are apart of Christ's bride AKA His Church.

Did the Early Church fall into heresy before or after the canon of Scripture was decided upon? Because if it was before then why would you base your faith on a book decided by a heretical church?

If there is absolute truth there cannot be different denominations who have conflicting views has have them both be right. I would contend that there is a right way to follow Christ. Matthew 7:14 "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."



The denominations exist because people do not want to accept hard truths. The specific way people follow Christ within a denomination can be different but the doctrines held cannot. There are doctrines that are nonnegotiable. There is no validity for denominations within Christianity.

John 17:20-21 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."


Denominations reject the prayer of Christ by creating division because of human pride. The Protestant reformation started because people thought that there ideas where better than 1400 years of common belief. The Reformation was not completely illegitimate because there was some corruption and abuse within the Church but splitting off from the Church to follow your(not your as in you but your as in anyone) own beliefs and completely rejecting all tradition is invalid.



Also how are you determining that the Early Church fell into heresy? Who are you to say what is heresy? Are you putting yourself and your interpreting power over the Early Church?

@War_Doctor Just because I think the Early Church might have fallen into heresy, does not mean I have to doubt their ability to put the books of the Bible together. I mean, I am sure you would trust some of your Protestant friends to walk into your home when you aren't there without stealing anything, even though they believe "wrongly."

@Jehoshaphat Is there any room for any disagreement within Christianity? So there were never disagreements in the NT where they decided to peaceably go separate ways while still serving Christ?  

Well just because something lasted 1400 years does not make it right. Someone can believe a lie for that long. Not saying they did, just it can happen. 

When I think of the Reformation, I see a lot of problems. I disagree with the majority of the different branches that formed as a result. But I do see one thing that really stands out that was a good thing. Passion. Renewal. Awakening. People were stirred up to the things of God. They had a hungering for the Bible and wanted to read it for themselves. They were not content with the ways things had always been. They sought, and studied deeper, seeking to find truth. And that is always right. Even if one is the rightest possible church, those are things that we should be doing. Growing content with the way things are spiritually is a dangerous place to be in. It's lukewarmness. 

By rejecting the RCC or the EO, I am not rejecting the Apostles or Christ. I am not sure how they are tied together. Sure, those Churches always did their absolute best to obey all of the Apostles teachings, and that's good and admirable. But just like them, I come after Christ, I look up to Christ, I obey Christ. I don't look at all the thousands of humans before me that interpreted themselves to be obeying Christ the Right Way, and follow them.

Also how are you determining that the Early Church fell into heresy? Who are you to say what is heresy? Are you putting yourself and your interpreting power over the Early Church?

Well first of all, I see changes and inconsistencies from the Early Church till now. I don't see the Early Christians allowing violence toward others of any kind in obedience to Christ's commands on loving one's enemies and turning the cheek, and then I see the Catholic Church later killing Muslims and even Protestants. I don't think the Apostles would have burned heretics at the stake. Jesus came to set up a Kingdom, yes. But not one that can come about with state, government, power, force or sword here on earth. And seeing people killed for doing something wrong makes it look like to me as an earthly Kingdom wanting power.

There's a huge difference between not stealing things and putting together what to you is the sole authoritative text for your faith. I don't get how you would trust people you think are heretical and not following God to put that together, also that you would trust them to get that right but almost literally nothing else. Plus you say they got it right but then you accept that Luther can change some bits to suit his views later, what possible objections could you raise in the future if heretics decide to cut out some bits of Scripture they don't like? "Hey heretics the books in the Bible can't be changed because a bunch of bishops who worshiped Mary said they couldn't, well I mean we did then change some 500 years ago but that is different somehow and you're totally not allowed to because?"

First of all, I am not saying the ones who put the Bible together were heretics. I think you just assumed that I believed that. Was it the Council of Necaea who first did that? Anyway, even if they were "heretics", who says they don't have the integrity to put the Bible together without changing it? You think I can't trust them. But I don't see them adding any verses in to fit their doctrine on infant baptism. In order to prove your assumption, I should see the entire Bible agreeing perfectly with them.

Here's the thing. God is God. He can protect His scripture, and I trust Him. Some Christians are blessed if they only have one book of the Bible, much less the OT and everything else. So yes, maybe the Reformers made a mistake in taking out some of the Bible. I am not saying they didn't. But the fact remains that God's word is still out there, and changing lives, regardless whether every book is included. If the Reformers had removed parts of the NT, that would be more serious, but if my understanding is correct, that isn't what was removed.

There is room for disagreement on certain things but doctrines such as baptism or the Trinity or the Eucharist there is not. I see no evidence of any disagreement in the NT where people just went there separate ways. Actually the main disagreement I see in Acts concerning the circumcision of the Gentiles where Peter made the final decision. What made him have the authority? What made the council of the Apostles and elders have any authority? When Jesus chose Peter to build his Church on he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He didn't say "You be protected until after you put the Bible together and then for 1100 years you will lead people astray until some disgruntled priest comes along and says he knows better". Jesus would not leave us stranded with only our own intellects to follow. He gave us the visible infallible church headed by the Apostles.

By rejecting the Church you do reject the apostles and Jesus because it is what he started and the Apostles followed. They are tied together by the very fact that they are one in the same. The apostles led the Church from its conception. It is so arrogant to say that you don't need what Jesus started, that is the Church, because you follow Christ alone. By rejecting his Church you inadvertently reject him. 
Why wouldn't you look at those who have gone before you? They are the example of how it is done. They have gone before us why wouldn't we want to imitate them. "Join with others in being imitators of me, brothers, and observe those who conduct themselves according to the model you have in us" (Phil 3:17); clearly this shows we should imitate those saints who have gone before us not reject them because you follow Christ. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas. Also you cannot reject tradition "We instruct you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. For you know how one must imitate us" (2 Thes 3:6-7). Clearly tradition is more important than you think.

Regarding the Crusades and the Inquisition, you cannot simply pull those out without understanding the historical arguments for each of them. In the case of the Crusades, they were a response to a valid threat. Kings defended there kingdoms and all of Europe. Without them it is likely that the Muslims would have taken over much maybe even all of Europe and probably wiped out Christianity. Yes, the pope condoned it, but not infallibly. From our perspective now it doesn't make any sense. But if you look at it objectively you can see why they would do it. The inquisition was a response to heresy arising in the Church. Not valid discussion but heresy. Many rulers, not the Church itself, took up the killing of people. They did this to preserve peace within their kingdoms. A very human reason but a valid reason. The main thing to understand is that the Church is made up of people who make mistakes and mess up. But despite that we will still be protected from the gates of hell. The church is a church of sinners not perfect people. You cannot discredit the whole Church by pointing out the faulty people who live in it. Judge the Church by its teachings not its members.

There is room for disagreement on certain things but doctrines such as baptism or the Trinity or the Eucharist there is not.

I agree with you that baptism should happen, just as it happened for every adult scripture mentions. And I agree communion should be taken, because Jesus expressed that. Jesus asked for obedience when it came to communion, and I mean to follow that as much as I can. As for the Trinity, I believe God is in three as scripture mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet I am still a heretic. Why? Because I do not accept the denomination that surrounds these beliefs, and the little twist they added that infants are baptized instead of adults. I cannot accept infant baptism because I cannot be convinced from scripture and so now I am considered to be rejecting Christ as well. It's extremely silly. 

Jesus would not leave us stranded with only our own intellects to follow. He gave us the visible infallible church headed by the Apostles. 

Does the Bible ever tell us this Church would be visible? I see rather the Son of God sending his apostles out to go preach the gospel to every tribe, kindred and nation and to gather His Church from all corners of the earth. Trying to keep them all locked down in a certain denomination would be extremely hindering. In fact, that is one thing I dislike about the Anabaptists. I think they focus too much on keeping their children walking with Christ, and forget about the millions of souls dying every day that need Christ. Are you saying souls that are saved without the "RC church" are not part of Christ's bride? What is the point of salvation then? This doesn't have to be a complicated religion unless you make it so. 

So no, Jesus would not leave us stranded with only our own intellects. He gave us the Bible, and the Holy Spirit to guide us. I see more of an emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the NT, then anything to do with the Apostolic Tradition. Not to mention our conscience which helps decide what is sin and what is not. Is believing the wrong doctrines sin? Or does that only lead to possible sin? I see a difference. In the end, God is going to accept only those who have kept their garments white and free from sin and who have fought against Satan in their lives and won. He isn't going to pick a denomination and throw everyone else out. 

His Church is living and vibrant and active. And yes, the apostles started the work. It's found in the hearts and lives of every true Christian that walks the face of this earth. When God saves a soul, He marks it as his own. The blood that went to purchase that soul came at a very dear price. God does not throw that soul away if it happens to join a wrong denomination. 

By rejecting the Church you do reject the apostles and Jesus because it is what he started and the Apostles followed. They are tied together by the very fact that they are one in the same. The apostles led the Church from its conception. It is so arrogant to say that you don't need what Jesus started, that is the Church, because you follow Christ alone. By rejecting his Church you inadvertently reject him.

Except I don't reject the Church. I only reject what you call the Church. And I agree a body of believers is very important for a Christian's survival as a Christian. 

Why wouldn't you look at those who have gone before you? They are the example of how it is done. They have gone before us why wouldn't we want to imitate them.

Well if I tried to look at all those who have gone before me, I run into considerable problems. I see the Early Christians believing certain things that didn't follow through for the rest of the time of the RC Church. Do I go with the ancient or the modern version now? 

I, as a Christian, have the full right to pick up my Bible and study the word for myself and trust God to lead me to truth as I test the words I find therein. 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This verse says that "the man of God may be perfect" not after following the Church, but after studying the scripture and testing it. 

"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us. For you know how one must imitate us" (2 Thes 3:6-7). Clearly tradition is more important than you think. 

I see that tradition as a thing that was needed back in the NT days. They didn't have scripture like we do today, so that was their alternative to help them. If tradition was enough, why do we need the Bible?

Without them it is likely that the Muslims would have taken over much maybe even all of Europe and probably wiped out Christianity.

Huh? If the Church is so infallible, it would not have been wiped out. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. That was proved again and again in the EC days. Everyone was martyred then, and I don't see them panicking and trying to attack the Romans because "Christianity might be wiped out." In fact, Christianity is wiped out, when Christians disobey Christ and start killing people and sending them into hell. It's the most awful un-Christ-like thing someone can do. 

Many rulers, not the Church itself, took up the killing of people. They did this to preserve peace within their kingdoms.

Those rulers, who are not the Church, God ordained to take care of evildoers in Romans, so that makes perfect sense. They belong to the World's Kingdom, so they take care of the World's problems. 

 You cannot discredit the whole Church by pointing out the faulty people who live in it. Judge the Church by its teachings not its members.

That is true. But stains are placed on the Church's reputation when a slide away from obedience to Christ happens. As for judging by it's teachings, not it's members... Unbelievers rarely look at what we believe. Belief holds little weight these days, if it ever held any weight before. They look at our lives. They watch how we live. And if we have nothing new to offer them, they are going to pass it by.

First off you are not a heretic because the definition of heretic heretic is someone who holds dissenting beliefs while still claiming to be apart of the larger whole. Since you do not claim to be Catholic you are not a heretic. Secondly, according to St. Augustine regarding infant baptism. "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained." The first time infant baptism was questioned was in the Reformation.

Does the Bible ever say it would be an invisible church? I see in Scripture Jesus starting a very visible Church made up of humans. People who are living and you can see. With Christ at their head. The thing about the Church is that it is a both/and. Not an either/or. You can be both an invisible church and a visible church.

I believe people can be saved outside of the Church. I just think it is a lot more difficult and way easier to fall into error.

He gave us the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and the Church. Believing wrong doctrines is not in and of itself a sin unless you know they are false and you accept them anyway.

Of course God will save all those who have lived a holy life and accept him and have chosen him continually. It is just so much easier to be in the Church Jesus himself started.

You reject my definition of Church because you think your definition is right. I honestly don't see any mention of Anabaptists until 1525. You have to accept that Jesus didn't start the Anabaptist movement. It is a historical fact.

Give me empirical evidence the early church changed things. I don't see people changing things until the 1400s with the Reformation.

As a Christian yes you should read the Bible I completely support that but you have to read the Bible in the context of the truth already revealed. You cannot read the Bible to decide doctrine for yourself. Because the Church is the pillar of truth according to Timothy 3:15. By claiming that you just you and the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible for yourself you claim infallibility. You claim the authority that Catholics only relegate to the Pope and the Councils when discussing faith and morals.

So your rejecting tradition because you have the Bible? Why can't I reject the Bible because we have Tradition? I don't reject the Bible it is another case of both and. The Church relies on both Tradition and the Bible. I never said tradition was enough. Even Paul said

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter".

Clearly he wanted them to follow tradition. Not everything they did was written down but rather some was passed on by "spoken word"

Concerning the Crusades, that's exactly my point. It wasn't wiped out because people took action. The prevented the slaughter of millions of people. Yes the early church was martyred a lot but it was a different time. Do you propose we go back to the time of martyrdom just because martyrdom is the way to go?

I don;t exactly get your point about God and evildoers and worldly kingdoms. But What I was saying is that they were humans who did things for very human reasons. In the name of the Church but not condoned by the Church.

Yes they do look at our lives but that does not eliminate the fact that we still believe things. We don't always live it out completely and it is sad to say that many Catholics don't try at all. But that does not discredit the church or tradition when members of it don't live it out wholeheartedly.

So I am not sure what I should be responding to at this point. We seem to be going in circles.

It is just so much easier to be in the Church Jesus himself started.

Well by the looks of things, He actually started two churches.

You reject my definition of Church because you think your definition is right. I honestly don't see any mention of Anabaptists until 1525. You have to accept that Jesus didn't start the Anabaptist movement. It is a historical fact.

Right. Jesus cannot inspire a church or anything after He ascends into heaven. I mean, the very idea. 

So I am an Anabaptist. I do NOT believe you must be an Anabaptist to walk into the gates of heaven as Christ's bride. That is not what Anabaptists are taught or believe. So no, we aren't God's special pet church at all. We don't claim to be Christ's entire body, we are just doing our absolute best to follow the scriptures to the best of our ability and live out our faith and serve God and His Kingdom. It's as simple as that. We are people who have given our lives to God, and He has us in His hands and He directs our paths. 

Give me empirical evidence the early church changed things. I don't see people changing things until the 1400s with the Reformation.

I'll get back to you on that. 

You cannot read the Bible to decide doctrine for yourself.

Then we might as well not read it at all. What's the point?

By claiming that you just you and the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible for yourself you claim infallibility

I claim no such thing. By reading the scripture and asking the Holy Spirit to teach me, I am OBEYING Christ. Make me a pope, or whatever I need to be to make you feel better, but it really doesn't change anything. 

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter". 

Clearly he wanted them to follow tradition. Not everything they did was written down but rather some was passed on by "spoken word"

Yes, well, "tradition" does seem to be scriptural. If that tradition is the same as Catholic tradition today... 

Do you propose we go back to the time of martyrdom just because martyrdom is the way to go? 

Going back to the time of martyrdom indicates that we have changed. Why did we have to change from the early Christians?

I am not saying martyrdom is the way to go. I am just saying we must be willing to die for Christ, without denying Him by killing the people who martyr us. We are supposed to love them. If the gospel and the Church feels threatened by a false religion like Islam, well then something is wrong. Jesus is the KING OF THE UNIVERSE. He can protect His Church, without us ever lifting a finger. He commanded us not to lift a finger, so there we have it. 

I don;t exactly get your point about God and evildoers and worldly kingdoms.

No one seems to obviously.  I was referring to Romans where it mentions how God set up the Worlds Kingdom to punish the evildoers in our land. But we, as part of God's Kingdom, are like Christ, and live in peace. That's why I see conflicting values in a "Christian policeman" etc.

Countess wrote:Well by the looks of things, He actually started two churches.

?

Countess wrote:Right. Jesus cannot inspire a church or anything after He ascends into heaven. I mean, the very idea.

He could but why would he? Isn't one enough? And how would you know the church is inspired by Jesus? Also Jesus prayed in John 17:21: "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."  He wouldn't start another Church if he wanted us all to be one, now would he.

Like you stated before, you read Scripture for the building up of the body and encouragement. There is a difference between reading the Bible for encouragement and for deciding beliefs. Just because you can't read it to determine doctrine does not mean you can't read it at all. It just means you have to read it in the light of the truth already revealed through the Church.

Countess wrote:I claim no such thing. By reading the scripture and asking the Holy Spirit to teach me, I am OBEYING Christ

Show me where Jesus said to read the Bible. I think we should but I don't see where you are getting the whole command from Christ. Also by claiming you are the only one who can say what truth is for yourself claims one thing and rejects another. It claims that you cannot err because the Holy Spirit will guide you to the church and it also rejects absolute truth because it asserts you can have truth that is different from my truth.

Tradition is scriptural. That's my point. The reformists rejected tradition when they broke away.

Yes. Things have changed. For the better. MOst of us are no longer killed for our beliefs. You know why that stopped? Because the whole Roman Empire converted! That is a good thing and a beneficial change. I don't believe all change is bad. Rather some changes are for the better like the end of martyrdom.

Countess wrote:He can protect His Church, without us ever lifting a finger. He commanded us not to lift a finger, so there we have it. 

Where did he command us not too? Didn't Jesus command us to defend the poor and weak? Is it better to let people sin or to stop them from sinning? And can't Jesus use people of his church, to defend his church? Why should we rely only on his power when he gave us power to defend ourselves? We should use our gifts given to us by Jesus, to carry out his will. His will is for his church to survive so doing what is necessary is ok. Even if it means killing people.

OK. I still don't quite understand but that is a different question for a different time.

?

EO and RC

He could but why would he? Isn't one enough? And how would you know the church is inspired by Jesus? Also Jesus prayed in John 17:21: "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."  He wouldn't start another Church if he wanted us all to be one, now would he.

Well your interpretation of "one" might not be what Jesus meant. Jesus wants His gospel preached everywhere, so if another church is planted in some faraway place, who are we to discourage that because they don't happen to belong to our denomination? We can all be one in Christ, even if we aren't united in every belief. 

Show me where Jesus said to read the Bible. I think we should but I don't see where you are getting the whole command from Christ. 

Well maybe not Jesus. The NT says plenty about reading the scriptures. Jesus did say that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God.

Yes. Things have changed. For the better. MOst of us are no longer killed for our beliefs. You know why that stopped? Because the whole Roman Empire converted! That is a good thing and a beneficial change. I don't believe all change is bad. Rather some changes are for the better like the end of martyrdom.

How can an earthly kingdom become part of Gods Kingdom when Jesus said expressively that His Kingdom is not of this world, if it were His followers would fight, but since it isn't, they won't fight for a Kingdom. This speaks against an earthly Kingdom fully converting, and also speaks against Christians being able to fight for the Church. 

Where did he command us not too? Didn't Jesus command us to defend the poor and weak? Is it better to let people sin or to stop them from sinning? And can't Jesus use people of his church, to defend his church? Why should we rely only on his power when he gave us power to defend ourselves? We should use our gifts given to us by Jesus, to carry out his will. His will is for his church to survive so doing what is necessary is ok. Even if it means killing people.

I am not sure where you get that logic. Where does Jesus say we should kill people if that is how his Church has to survive? Like I said, He says in John that His Kingdom is not of this world, and if it were, his followers would fight. I think Jesus commanded us to help the poor and weak, and comfort the widows in their distress. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. His Kingdom cannot be about killing at all, or else you put it to the level of any other earthly kingdom. Can you really imagine Jesus commanding His followers to fight and kill and send to hell the very people He died for? It goes against the whole entire gospel plan.

The split between the EO an RC happened in the 11th century but neither of us rejected apostolic tradition so we can both be considered valid churches.

Jesus said one. I say one. What is the difference? Aren't you the people who take the whole Bible literally? Are you saying Jesus is saying something besides one? Are you trying to interpret Jesus' words to fit your own belief? Not being completely united would be having multiple things. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Also is says one as he and the Father are one. I'm pretty sure he and the Father agree on everything.

I agree we should read Scripture but we have to read it in the light of truth already revealed through his Church

I never said an earthly kingdom joined God's kingdom. I said that everyone in the Roman Empire converted. Are you telling me that is a bad thing? That everyone started following Christ? 

I think you emphasize this two kingdom thing too much. Yes we are apart of the heavenly kingdom of Christ but we are also still on earth and therefore we still have as you would say "worldly" obligations. We have the obligation to defend the weak. By letting ourselves be killed we aren't defending anybody rather we let other people commit the sin of murder. Self defense is not murder. Also Jesus did tell the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36. Jesus later rebuked Peter's use of the sword because he knew what was going to happen and he had told the apostles many time what was to come.

How does killing lower the Kingdom of God to an earthly level? Nothing can lower God's kingdom. Also this whole kingdom theology makes really no sense at all.

The split between the EO an RC happened in the 11th century but neither of us rejected apostolic tradition so we can both be considered valid churches.

So it's the Apostolic Tradition which makes a Church valid? I thought Jesus was what made a church valid. If you accept an authority outside of Jesus, then the church is wrong/a cult etc. Also, how can both churches be valid if Jesus meaning of "one" was one denomination?

I never said an earthly kingdom joined God's kingdom. I said that everyone in the Roman Empire converted. Are you telling me that is a bad thing? That everyone started following Christ?

Everyone started following Christ? Really? No, I think rather they just attached Him as a figure head to their nation, and went on their way. And really, could you force an entire nation to convert by attaching "Christian" to it? No. Salvation and following Christ is a choice. 

I think you emphasize this two kingdom thing too much.

Well the two Kingdoms is a doctrine, but it's also a distinct separated way of life. Jesus did not come preaching the gospel of the church. He came preaching the gospel of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God was the central part of Christ's preaching. Making it the most important teaching Christians should grab onto. It's mentioned far more times than apostolic tradition, I might add. So no, I don't think I can mention this too much, as it's the very thing Christ came to preach. 

Luke 4:43 wrote:And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Yes we are apart of the heavenly kingdom of Christ but we are also still on earth and therefore we still have as you would say "worldly" obligations.

In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus prays that "God's Kingdom would come, that His will would be done, as earth as it is in Heaven." Will there be any killing in Heaven? No. And if we are apart of Christ's Kingdom, (Heaven) we live like foreigners and following the same rules and guidelines of Heaven here on earth. Yes, we obey our earthly government and dwell in peace, but we do not belong with them. We belong to Christ's Kingdom, therefore we have a higher set of standards then the common earth dweller. And Christ says: 

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Jesus 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.

We have the obligation to defend the weak. By letting ourselves be killed we aren't defending anybody rather we let other people commit the sin of murder. Self defense is not murder.

Where do we have the obligation to defend the weak? Can you defend the weak with a sword and not disobey any of Jesus other commands? By letting ourselves get killed we do the same thing Christ and all the apostles did. Are they not good enough role models? We let other people commit the sin of murder? They are sinners, that is what they do. It would be worse if we put a stain on Christ's name by committing that murder ourselves. Okay, maybe self defense isn't murder, but it's still taking a life. A life that did not know God. A life that Jesus died for. A life that God loved. And stamping on it and sending it to hell forever. Wouldn't it be much better to lay down our life and LOVE THAT ENEMY and pray that God would yet find that soul and save it after our death?

Also Jesus did tell the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36. Jesus later rebuked Peter's use of the sword because he knew what was going to happen and he had told the apostles many time what was to come. 

Read that in context. 

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

So first of all, Jesus has his disciples buy a sword just before His death. One reason, as He said, was to fulfill prophesy. Another reason was so that He was reckoned among the transgressors. See, Jesus had never sinned, and he nor his disciples had done anything that should merit a crucifixion. But then after Peter had the sword he used it on a solider....and that meant that Jesus's was now reckoned among transgressors. So Peter had transgressed by doing that. Then Jesus disarmed Peter...(and I might add that one of your Church Fathers said that when Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every Christian forever)...and He said that "those who live by the sword die by it" so this was speaking to everyone, not just Peter. And also, if the swords were really for violence and self-defense, it doesn't make sense that there were two swords for 12 guys...now does it?

How does killing lower the Kingdom of God to an earthly level? Nothing can lower God's kingdom. Also this whole kingdom theology makes really no sense at all.

Killing is something earthly kingdoms have done for centuries, and will continue to do until the world ends. Wars/blood/murder/hate/weapons...it's existed since the beginning of time. That is how earthly kingdoms control their nations...that's how the conquor. But Christ's Kingdom is so utterly different and removed from that. It's a gospel of love, of peace, of laying down one's life, it's completely foreign and strange to an earthly mind. Christians win through love, not hate. So to kill in the name of Christ is dragging His Kingdom to an earthly level. 

I'm sorry it's not making sense. I am not a very good ex-plainer. Maybe it would be better to go read all 149 times that Christ mentions the gospel of the Kingdom to find out what it really is.

Not tradition explicitly but rather the acceptance of the way the Bible says truth is to be handed down. I would say the EO and RCC are one Church separate in government and both valid because of their acceptance of apostolic tradition.

Protestant denominations reject apostolic tradition which invalidates them because in 2 Thessalonians it says:

"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."

I cannot accept any Protestant denomination that rejected the traditions handed down over centuries.

I agree salvation and following Christ is a choice but having a government support Christianity is not a bad thing. And no you cannot force an entire nation to convert by attaching Christian to it but not persecuting people is better than persecuting people.

I think you reject anything that has to do with the world in any way, even something beneficial, because you think the world is intrinsically evil. I would say that is just completely false. If my supposition is correct I will tell you why, but I wanted to make sure I know what you are saying.

I won't go into the Two Kingdoms or war in this thread because I don't completely understand the Two Kingdom stuff and we already have a topic on war.

To everything you said about Tradition, I heard someone say one time that Protestants do follow the tradition the apostles handed down, just not everything that came after the Bible, and that was added. 

So we didn't reject the tradition, we just interpret what it is differently. 

I agree salvation and following Christ is a choice but having a government support Christianity is not a bad thing. And no you cannot force an entire nation to convert by attaching Christian to it but not persecuting people is better than persecuting people.

I agree. Just don't try to say that since the government supports Christianity it is now part of the Kingdom of God. 

I think you reject anything that has to do with the world in any way, even something beneficial, because you think the world is intrinsically evil. I would say that is just completely false. If my supposition is correct I will tell you why, but I wanted to make sure I know what you are saying.

No, the world isn't "intrinsically evil" but as Christians we are called to turn away from the world, and warned to not love it. So it is a snare and an evil to us. 

I won't go into the Two Kingdoms or war in this thread because I don't completely understand the Two Kingdom stuff and we already have a topic on war.

So the Catholics teach nothing about the Two Kingdoms when Jesus taught on it? 

You rejected the way the Church had been governed and how doctrine had been decided for the first 1500 years and decided to do it your own way. If that isn't rejecting tradition, I don't know what is.

I disagree that we are called to turn away from the world. We are called to be in the world and participate in the events of the world but not to be of it. We cannot place our hope in the world. Rather we trust in God's love and plan while still trying to change our world. God didn't put us here to stay isolated from everyone. Rather he called us to go out into the world and preach the gospel. To change the world with his message. That means we can participate in the government as a means to change the world.

The Catholics teach about the Two Kingdoms but it isn't nearly as extreme as your theology. It teaches that while we are here on earth we should hope in heaven and try to change our world. Not to trust in the things of this life but not to reject them either. Also Jesus kingdom will be on earth at the end of time. According to Revelation 21:1 "Then I saw 'a new heaven and a new earth,' for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea"  That says that even the current heaven will pass away and there will be both a new earth and a new heaven for us to enjoy.

So, according to my church, as Anabaptists, we believe that Jesus is the Word of God, and is the only infallible Word of God, and that the Bible points to Him. However, there are some "human mistakes" in the Bible.

Are you an Anabaptist like that? ^^

And if you aren't, why do you accept the term Anabaptist, even though there are many different denominations that accept the term Anabaptist. Isn't it more specific to state your exact denomination, rather than just a "group" of denominations?

Jeho wrote:You rejected the way the Church had been governed and how doctrine had been decided for the first 1500 years and decided to do it your own way. If that isn't rejecting tradition, I don't know what is.

Umm okay. So yes, I'm against what you define as tradition. I'm not against what the Bible calls tradition. When the apostles were speaking of "tradition" they were not speaking of a denomination that would last 1500 years, because they could not see history... at all. 

Jeho wrote: Also Jesus kingdom will be on earth at the end of time.

Okay, so how do you explain the verses where Christ talks about His Kingdom coming to earth NOW? God's Kingdom is not this far off future thing. It's actively working and changing right now. And I want to be apart of it... now. 

Mr. Ox wrote:So, according to my church, as Anabaptists, we believe that Jesus is the Word of God, and is the only infallible Word of God, and that the Bible points to Him. However, there are some "human mistakes" in the Bible. 

Are you an Anabaptist like that? ^^

Yes, I am an Anabaptist "like that."   

Isaiah the Geek wrote:Isn't it more specific to state your exact denomination, rather than just a "group" of denominations?

Except I don't belong to any particular overarching denomination, or else I would name it.

They were speaking of the Church as it was. They didn't think people would just pick up and leave the Church because they thought they knew better than all of the Apostles and the previous 1500 of tradition handed down. The Bible never defines tradition it just simply says what tradition is. Tradition is defined by what the people did originally and how that developed.