Hi Mark,
>Could you expand on this thought further, please?<
Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.
Jn. 18:36 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.
Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
2Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
1Cor. 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Romans 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.
1Pt. 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.12 Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:
1Cor. 4:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
>Remember that Jesus did violence to the moneychangers in the Temple.<
Yes, and He also allowed Peter the use of 2 swords. But both these were before the institution of the N.T., or covenant, which occurs by His death (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16)
I also think that the use of precisely 2 swords (not armies) was in condescension to the disciples plight in the interim period of the absence of Jesus and endowment of the Holy Spirit, while the Lord’s use of corporal means of force was also His right, as it was His Father’s house, and yet operated under the Old dispensation. I would like to think that this also allows the use of corporal punishment of one’s own children, as needed (it was on me!), which is the only weak link in my position against outlawing physical force in chastising church members. But at the least such could never be used to enforce doctrinal conformity ala the Inquisitions, while the church is not constituted to rule as a civil power.
Yet abstaining from the use of physical force against the non-elect, in preference to spiritual means, need not outlaw any use of force at all times. Physically stopping a person from jumping off a bridge would be one example where it could be sanctioned, and it is hard to argue against reacting with some force as a last resort against an immediate threat in order to protect the innocent, with a willingness to take their place as the victim. But these are derivative arguments from reason and the intent of the law, but the explicit teaching under the New Covenant is that of only the use of spiritual means to defend and expand the church, and to discipline its members.
I would also hold that nothing prevents a Christian from the just use of force when acting for the government, as the use of the sword by them is explicitly sanctioned.
The feet kissing objection was, in context, part of the larger situation of one man being high and lifted up as the supreme human head.
Act 10:5 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man
Gal. 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Though brethren are to wash each others feet, in more ways than that, those that exalt themselves shall be abased, and the greatest shall be servant of all.
Certainly copelled obeisance will take place, in the context of judgment, but it is not to men who hold out their feet to be kissed.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
It is unclear what precisely you are referring to.
Indeed, and what i said is in conformity to it. The point is that the body of Christ is not simply one formal organic union, which Rome since V2 recognizes, though it marginalizes Bible-based evangelicals as “deficient in grace”, compared to Catholics, thorough evidence shows the opposite.
Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.
As far as political power, if all Catholics became evangelicals that would have more beneficial effect, as consistently studies show that evangelicals are overall more faithful to doctrinal essentials and are more conservative. No that i am satisfied with out present condition.
The true test of spiritual superiority is when there is an even playing field, and even though the deck was overwhelmingly stacked against them, the early church did not overcome the paganism of Rome by the use of secular power, and if the early church had been in the spiritual condition that it was at Luther’s time, then it enemies would have prevailed. Early one it was already showing signs of corruption, and division, as Paul foresaw, and after 313 it was incorporating paganism.
And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers. The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.
***Certainly. As stated, the N.T. church never used physical force in countering its enemies, as this was contrary to its charter and spiritual constitution, nor did they use deceitful means, and instead the church must have spiritual power and integrity to prevail.***
Hmm, well, the Church spent most of the first two centuries relatively underground, making extensive use of the Roman catacombs, for instance. I guess that not being extremely visible is not exactly deceitful, so you do have a point.
Yet Augustine did advocate just war, and so have many of the other Church Fathers. Violence in the early Church was rare; certainly.
***Likewise regarding disciplining its members (using spiritual power and the passive means of disfellowship), nor did it rule over those without:***
Jesus made the whole of mankind his business, not just the local church.
***Not so, as heretics always existed, if suppressed. What you have to mean was if Rome had not lost her secular powers by which she suppressed such then they would not have existed. If every Protestant (legitimately or more broadly defined), became Catholic, that that itself would not prevent LDS types from arising. Without secular powers suppressing them, the only way for victory is spiritual superiority in spirit and in doctrine, and it was in that quest that the Reformation began.***
The success of the Reformation was entirely secular, with the German princes seizing on the vehicle of the Reformation with the aim of seizing secular power. Without secular power, and a weakened Church, the Reformation took root and therefore the heresies, relatively unopposed, ran amuck.
***Joel Osteen and Rick Warren would have been hucking snake oil and not salvation.<
And the litany of wonderfully holy and selfless Protestants would have been suppressed or killed, even as it did to its own Savonarola’s. Matthew Henry’s beloved and extensive practical commentary would not exist, the likes of which, in depth, is not seen in Rome. Likewise many other primary enlightening works (Barnes, Clarke, Gill. Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and other Protestants who even today are the primary voices and soldiers in the war against cults, and false preachers.***
If you read up on the first millennium and a half, you will see that the Church dealt quite actively with the heretics and cults and the development of doctrine along with those dealings.
***The multitude of mighty and sacrificial laborers on the mission field who preached the gospel that Peter preached (Acts 10:43-47) would not be found. Absent would the tens of thousands of hymns penned by souls who knew, loved and walked with their Savior, whose glory He shed on their way, (which are such an expression of that relationship, that unless they are all relegated to being psychotic, they are a proof the existence of Christ) and are even sung by Catholics. Some may imagine that such souls would have converted to Rome, but it was their commitment to Biblical integrity that prevented that, while their spiritual fruit was of such a quality that to suppress them would be to fight against God.***
I would disagree completely with this last statement. The Church started, and continues to be Apostolic. Scripture is one of the teachings of the Church. Another is the rest of sacred Tradition, which, as John’s Gospel says, goes beyond what is written in Scripture.