Christian Forums

Why were the Anabaptist persecuted by the RCC?

They were persecuted by some Protestants as well. They rejected infant baptism, and rightly so, in favor of being baptized as a sign of conversion by one who understood and accepted the gospel message. This is of course not possible for infants. They believed that church and state should be separate. They did not accept real presence in communion. Some kept the seventh day Sabbath. Just to mention a few possible reasons for their persecution.

Some of the early anabaptists tried to push their movement in violent ways. Some of this "persecution" could be the medieval equivalent of maintaining order in society. So you'll have to be more specific.

Quote from: Catholica on Sat Jan 02, 2016 - 19:33:39
Some of the early anabaptists tried to push their movement in violent ways. Some of this "persecution" could be the medieval equivalent of maintaining order in society. So you'll have to be more specific.

Especially when the order of society demands that one be a good Catholic or else. Perhaps you could be more specific about the violent ways they tried to push their movement, that we might examine the validity of this claim.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jan 03, 2016 - 09:02:54

Quote from: Catholica on Sat Jan 02, 2016 - 19:33:39
Some of the early anabaptists tried to push their movement in violent ways. Some of this "persecution" could be the medieval equivalent of maintaining order in society. So you'll have to be more specific.

Especially when the order of society demands that one be a good Catholic or else. Perhaps you could be more specific about the violent ways they tried to push their movement, that we might examine the validity of this claim.

Sure. For example, Google "Münster Rebellion".

Quote from: Catholica on Sun Jan 03, 2016 - 11:19:50

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jan 03, 2016 - 09:02:54

Quote from: Catholica on Sat Jan 02, 2016 - 19:33:39
Some of the early anabaptists tried to push their movement in violent ways. Some of this "persecution" could be the medieval equivalent of maintaining order in society. So you'll have to be more specific.

Especially when the order of society demands that one be a good Catholic or else. Perhaps you could be more specific about the violent ways they tried to push their movement, that we might examine the validity of this claim.

Thanks.

Sure. For example, Google "Münster Rebellion".

Here is an account of the Münster rebellion:

The "New Jerusalem" (Münster), the founding of which was signalized by a reign of terror and indescribable orgies. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism, polygamy, and community of women were introduced.

During February 1534, the power of the Anabaptists in Münster increased dramatically. On February 8, Jan Bockelszoon van Leiden and the guild leader Bernard Knipperdolling, whom Bockelszoon had befriended, ran wildly through the streets, screaming that everyone must repent of their sins. This ignited much emotional turbulence, especially among the women Anabaptists, who, as former nuns,had recently left the convents and fallen under the influence of Rothmann's preaching. Some began to see apocalyptic visions in the streets of such intensity that they would foam at the mouth and throw themselves upon the ground . In such a charged atmosphere, the Anabaptists made their first armed rising and took the Town Hall and market place. The Lutheran majority in the town offered little resistance, and soon the town council recognized the Anabaptists as legal citizens of Münster. Thereafter, many Lutherans fled the city and the Anabaptists grew in number and power. Messengers and manifestos were sent out urging Anabaptists in other towns to come with their families to Münster. The rest of the earth, it was announced, was to be destroyed, but Münster would be spared to become the New Jerusalem.Into this volatile situation Jan Matthys entered: a tall, gaunt figure with a long black beard. His imposing, physical presence allowed him to gain power quickly, but the attempt to realize the New Jerusalem was not without authoritarian measures. Unlike Hoffman, he did not hesitate to employ violence to accomplish his purposes. On February 25, 1534, he preached a sermon at the house of an Anabaptist near a fish market. Afterwards, he proclaimed to the crowd that God 's grace had allowed the city to have a favorable beginning, but in order to build the republic of Christ on earth, it was necessary to purify the city of all uncleanness (Unsauberkeit), whether the impure be papists or others who dissented from the prevailing Anabaptist teachings. To achieve this goal, Matthys advocated the execution of all remaining Roman Catholics. However, Knipperdolling, one of the town leaders, disagreed with Matthys, saying that the bloodshed would cause the outside world to be enraged against Münster. A compromise was reached and they decided to expel all the "godless" ((Gottlosen)) from the city and make those who chose to stay behind receive compulsory baptism.

This task of expulsion and compulsion took place several days later. On the morning of February 27, armed men, urged on by Matthys, ran through the streets yelling: "Get out you godless ones, and never come back you enemies of the Father." In bitter cold, in the midst of snow, rain and wind, droves of the "godless" including the old and invalids, small children, and pregnant women were chased from the town by Anabaptists who beat and laughed at them. They were forced to leave their belongings behind, their food was confiscated and they had no choice but to beg in the countryside for food and lodging. As for those who decided to remain in town, they received compulsory re-baptism in the marketplace. The entire process lasted three days. By eliminating the The Catholics from the city, Matthys and his cohorts not only heightened the sense of chiliastic expectation but they also came to realize that the outside world was growing intolerant of the developments within Münster, and that they were soon to be besieged. The Catholic Bishop of the city, Franz van Waldeck, had been at work some time in recruiting soldiers to confront the Anabaptist threat. The expulsion of the Catholics prompted him to accelerate his efforts. Soon thereafter, earthworks were erected around the town and the siege began. Many Anabaptists were surprised and confused to find themselves at war, but under the leadership of Knipperdolling they soon recovered confidence and began responding to the threat. Men, women, and children were assigned various duties. Small skirmishes took place outside the walls.

The war atmosphere led to a veritable social revolution. Matthys seized the opportunity to consolidate his power over the property and money of the townspeople. He preached that it was the Father's will that all the goods of the recent exiles be confiscated. Moreover, all the account books and contracts found in their homes were burned. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed. Their clothing, beds, furniture, tables, weapons, and food were placed in a central area  and, after praying for three days, Matthys announced that God had given him a sign to appoint seven deacons to distribute the goods to the people.

This trend toward common ownership culminated in an institutionalized communism. Under the leadership of Matthys, the town preachers and council members decided that all goods should be shared in common. Matthys employed Rothmann to promulgate this new vision of society in his sermons. "Dear brothers and sisters," Rothmann proclaimed, "afterwards we shall be one people. Brothers and sisters, indeed it is completely God 's will that we bring our money, silver, and gold together. One person should have just as much as another." At first this order was met with considerable opposition. The people who had recently received compulsory baptism were assembled and told that unless they relinquished their money they would perish. They were then locked inside a church in a state of mortal fear for several hours. At length Matthys entered the church with a group of armed men. His victims implored him to intercede to God for them, which he did, saying that if they complied, God would allow them back in the community. Ultimately, they complied.

Yet not everyone acceded to Matthys's authority: some defied him unto death. A blacksmith, for instance, unconvinced by Matthys's prophecies, accused him of being possessed by the devil. Matthys had him arrested and thrown in the tower. Later he was brought to the market place where many of the citizens were also summoned. Matthys gave a speech in which he declared that God was outraged at this man's evil actions because he had defiled an otherwise pure town. He was sentenced to death, but before execution, was stabbed repeatedly with a halberd and thrown back into the tower. Later he was placed against the town wall and Matthys himself shot him in the stomach, causing his eventual death. The gathered crowd was told to profit from the example of the blacksmith and they dutifully sang a hymn before dispersing.

A final instance of the authoritarian control exercised by Matthys may be seen in his decision to regulate information. On March 15, 1534, Matthys proclaimed that all books except the Old and New Testaments (which were deemed solely sufficient for conducting a holy life) were to be brought to the cathedral-square where they were burned to ashes. This anti-intellectualist act represents a complete break with the past, and it allowed Matthys to gain a complete monopoly in the interpretation of Scripture.

On Easter Sunday of 1534, Matthys received what he believed to be a divine command to make a sortie against the besiegers of the city with only a few men to help him. The result was a miserable failure. He was pierced with a pike beheaded, and his body hacked to pieces. His head was later raised on a pole outside the city. Thus, the authoritarian reign of Jan Matthys came to an end Summing up the character of this prophet years later, Obbe Philips wrote:

He was so fierce and bloodthirsty that he brought various people to their deaths; yea he was so violent that even his enemies for their part were terrified of him, and finally in a tumult they became too powerful for him, they were so incensed that they did not just kill him . . . but hacked and chopped him into little pieces.

The death of Matthys allowed for his disciple Jan Bockelszoon van Leiden to assume leadership. Under Bockelszoon, the previously- established authoritarian measures of Matthys continued, reaching a crescendo in his decision to anoint himself king. The kingdom which he set up is legendary in German history, so here I will touch upon only its most salient features.

Bockelszoon began his messianic reign by running naked through the streets of Münster in a wild religious frenzy; he then fell into a silent ecstasy for three days. When his power of speech returned, he announced that God had told him to restructure the town government immediately, which he did by appointing twelve men whom he called the Elders or the Judges of the Tribes of Israel (Ältesten der Stämme Israels) who were placed in charge of all the public, private, spiritual, and worldly affairs of the citizens of Münster the "Israelites." The twelve published a new code of moral law   which provided for strict military organization and a tighter communism of goods. Some workers, for instance, previously employed for money, were forced to continue in their trades without pay, simply as servants of the community. The code also had a very rigid stance on sins committed after (re-)baptism, and all citizens were subjected to demanding laws:

If we are God's sons and have been baptized in Christ then all evil must disappear from among us.... Every one is under the authorities, who have power over all. Because there is no authority outside of God.... If you do evil, fear the authorities. They wield the sword not in vain; they are God's servants, the avengers to punish the evildoer.Sins punishable by death included blasphemy, seditious language, scolding one's parents, adultery, lewd conduct, backbiting, spreading scandal, and even complaining! Bockleszoon's most controversial innovation was polygamy. It was introduced at least partly to emulate the Old Testament patriarchs  and also (perhaps) to compensate for the rapid attrition of male citizens due to their military efforts. Bockelszoon established polygamy on his own authority by announcing that all who resisted it would be considered reprobates and therefore in danger of execution. Persons of marriageable age were ordered to marry; unmarried women had to accept the first man to ask them. This often led to disorder in the competition to see who could acquire the most wives, and thus this latter regulation was ultimately rescinded. Bockelszoon himself, beside remarrying Matthys's widow Divara,ultimately accumulated 15 wives. Bernard Rothmann received second place with nine.

It was not as an ordinary king that Bockelszoon established himself, but as the Messiah of the Last Days. One day a goldsmith declared that the Heavenly Father had revealed to him that Bockelszoon was to be king of the whole world, holding dominion over all kings, princes, and great ones of the earth. He was to inherit the scepter and throne of his forefather David and was to keep them until God should reclaim the kingdom from him. Bockelszoon accepted this man's prophecy and soon enlisted the town preachers to deliver one sermon after another, explaining that the Messiah foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament was indeed none other than Jan van Leiden Bockleszoon. Bockelszoon himself called a town meeting in which he gave a speech to proclaim his new identity, "Now God has chosen me to be king over the entire world. What I do, I must do, because God has ordained me. Dear brothers and sisters, let us now give thanks to God." After the sermon, Bockelszoon led the crowd in singing a psalm, and then everyone returned to their homes.

Bockelszoon did everything possible to represent tangibly the importance of his new position. While the siege continued outside the city, the streets and the gates within were given new names. Sundays and feast days were abolished and the days of the week were renamed on an alphabetical system. Even the names of infants were decided upon by the king according to a special system. Gold and silver coins were minted with inscriptions that emphasized Bockelszoon's unique role: "One King Over All."A special emblem was devised to symbolize Bockelszoon's absolute claim to spiritual and temporal dominion: a globe, representing the world, pierced by two swords and surmounted by a cross inscribed with the words: "One king of righteousness over all ." The king himself wore this emblem modeled in gold as a necklace, his attendants wore it as a badge on their sleeves, and it was accepted in Münster as the official emblem of the state.Bockelszoon set up a throne in the marketplace. Draped with cloth and gold, it towered above the surrounding benches which were allotted to other dignitaries and preachers. Often the king would come there to sit in judgment or to oversee the proclamation of new regulations. Heralded by fanfare, he would arrive on horseback wearing a crown and carrying a scepter. In front of him marched officers of the court, behind him came Knipperdolling, who was now chief minister; Rothmann, who was now the royal orator; and a long line of lesser servants. On either side of his throne stood a page, one holding a copy of the Old Testament, the other a sword. Both symbolized the absolute control which Bockelszoon exercised over the citizens.

Though the king indulged in a life of excess, he subjected his citizens to austerity. Harsh regulations of dress went into effect; for God, Bockelszoon had said, abhorred all superfluity in clothing. Every house was searched and anything that was considered surplus was confiscated. To justify the disparity between his lifestyle and that of the people, he explained that luxury was permitted him because he was completely dead to the world and the flesh.

Finally, though Bockelszoon maintained his grip on power through prophetic outbursts and appeals to Scripture, his primary means of controlling the populace was terror and brute force. Two instances suffice to demonstrate this. The first one came in the wake of Bockelszoon's decree of polygamy when a group of citizens, led by Henry Mollenhecke, attempted to stage a coup and depose him Their efforts failed, however, and Mollenhecke, with forty-eight of his followers was brutally tortured and ultimately beheaded in a macabre process that took four days. Afterwards, two mass graves were dug in the marketplace where all the dead bodies were placed a solemn reminder of Bockelszoon's authority. Another example of Bockelszoon's tactics of intimidation was his decision to execute several women for their sins. One was beheaded simply for denying her husband his marital rights, another for bigamy (the practice of polygamy was solely a male prerogative), and a third for insulting one of Bockelszoon's preachers. Indeed, the king would tolerate no transgressions. It was thus announced that all sinners in the future would be immediately brought before the king and sentenced to death. They would be extirpated from the Chosen People their very memory would be blotted out, and they would find no mercy beyond the grave.

WHILE Bockelszoon was busy with his power and prestige within the city outside the city walls, the siege of Münster, spearheaded by Bishop Franz von Waldeck, continued. By careful diplomatic action, the Bishop had managed to involve both Catholic and Protestant rulers, as well as imperial representatives in support of his cause. Even Philip of Hesse, one of the staunchest supporters of Protestantism, was a faithful supporter. Almost constantly out of funds, the Bishop wrote letters pleading for help to a host of potential patrons: King Ferdinand, elector of Mainz, Trier, Saxony, and Brandenburg; the dukes of Braunschweig, Luneburg, and Saxony; and the bishop of Liege. Although most declined, the bishop raised enough support to maintain the  force which he had gathered and to continue the siege and the occasional skirmishes against the city. Despite political and financial support, the actual military enterprise proved largely unsuccessful throughout 1534 and for the first few months of 1535. Endeavors to blockade the city, to drain the moats, and even to take direct military action ultimately failed. In June, 1535, the defence became more and more hopeless, and John, as a last means of escape, determined upon setting fire to the city. His plan was frustrated by the unexpected capture of the town by the besiegers (24 June, 1535). The King, his lieutenant Knipperdollinck, and his chancellor Krechting were seized, and after six months' imprisonment and torture, executed. As a terrible warning, their bodies were suspended in iron cages from the tower of St. Lambert's church.

Quote from: Catholica on Sun Jan 03, 2016 - 12:17:29
Here is an account of the Münster rebellion:

The "New Jerusalem" (Münster), the founding of which was signalized by a reign of terror and indescribable orgies. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism, polygamy, and community of women were introduced.

During February 1534, the power of the Anabaptists in Münster increased dramatically. On February 8, Jan Bockelszoon van Leiden and the guild leader Bernard Knipperdolling, whom Bockelszoon had befriended, ran wildly through the streets, screaming that everyone must repent of their sins. This ignited much emotional turbulence, especially among the women Anabaptists, who, as former nuns,had recently left the convents and fallen under the influence of Rothmann's preaching. Some began to see apocalyptic visions in the streets of such intensity that they would foam at the mouth and throw themselves upon the ground . In such a charged atmosphere, the Anabaptists made their first armed rising and took the Town Hall and market place. The Lutheran majority in the town offered little resistance, and soon the town council recognized the Anabaptists as legal citizens of Münster. Thereafter, many Lutherans fled the city and the Anabaptists grew in number and power. Messengers and manifestos were sent out urging Anabaptists in other towns to come with their families to Münster. The rest of the earth, it was announced, was to be destroyed, but Münster would be spared to become the New Jerusalem.Into this volatile situation Jan Matthys entered: a tall, gaunt figure with a long black beard. His imposing, physical presence allowed him to gain power quickly, but the attempt to realize the New Jerusalem was not without authoritarian measures. Unlike Hoffman, he did not hesitate to employ violence to accomplish his purposes. On February 25, 1534, he preached a sermon at the house of an Anabaptist near a fish market. Afterwards, he proclaimed to the crowd that God 's grace had allowed the city to have a favorable beginning, but in order to build the republic of Christ on earth, it was necessary to purify the city of all uncleanness (Unsauberkeit), whether the impure be papists or others who dissented from the prevailing Anabaptist teachings. To achieve this goal, Matthys advocated the execution of all remaining Roman Catholics. However, Knipperdolling, one of the town leaders, disagreed with Matthys, saying that the bloodshed would cause the outside world to be enraged against Münster. A compromise was reached and they decided to expel all the "godless" ((Gottlosen)) from the city and make those who chose to stay behind receive compulsory baptism.

This task of expulsion and compulsion took place several days later. On the morning of February 27, armed men, urged on by Matthys, ran through the streets yelling: "Get out you godless ones, and never come back you enemies of the Father." In bitter cold, in the midst of snow, rain and wind, droves of the "godless" including the old and invalids, small children, and pregnant women were chased from the town by Anabaptists who beat and laughed at them. They were forced to leave their belongings behind, their food was confiscated and they had no choice but to beg in the countryside for food and lodging. As for those who decided to remain in town, they received compulsory re-baptism in the marketplace. The entire process lasted three days. By eliminating the The Catholics from the city, Matthys and his cohorts not only heightened the sense of chiliastic expectation but they also came to realize that the outside world was growing intolerant of the developments within Münster, and that they were soon to be besieged. The Catholic Bishop of the city, Franz van Waldeck, had been at work some time in recruiting soldiers to confront the Anabaptist threat. The expulsion of the Catholics prompted him to accelerate his efforts. Soon thereafter, earthworks were erected around the town and the siege began. Many Anabaptists were surprised and confused to find themselves at war, but under the leadership of Knipperdolling they soon recovered confidence and began responding to the threat. Men, women, and children were assigned various duties. Small skirmishes took place outside the walls.

The war atmosphere led to a veritable social revolution. Matthys seized the opportunity to consolidate his power over the property and money of the townspeople. He preached that it was the Father's will that all the goods of the recent exiles be confiscated. Moreover, all the account books and contracts found in their homes were burned. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed. Their clothing, beds, furniture, tables, weapons, and food were placed in a central area  and, after praying for three days, Matthys announced that God had given him a sign to appoint seven deacons to distribute the goods to the people.

This trend toward common ownership culminated in an institutionalized communism. Under the leadership of Matthys, the town preachers and council members decided that all goods should be shared in common. Matthys employed Rothmann to promulgate this new vision of society in his sermons. "Dear brothers and sisters," Rothmann proclaimed, "afterwards we shall be one people. Brothers and sisters, indeed it is completely God 's will that we bring our money, silver, and gold together. One person should have just as much as another." At first this order was met with considerable opposition. The people who had recently received compulsory baptism were assembled and told that unless they relinquished their money they would perish. They were then locked inside a church in a state of mortal fear for several hours. At length Matthys entered the church with a group of armed men. His victims implored him to intercede to God for them, which he did, saying that if they complied, God would allow them back in the community. Ultimately, they complied.

Yet not everyone acceded to Matthys's authority: some defied him unto death. A blacksmith, for instance, unconvinced by Matthys's prophecies, accused him of being possessed by the devil. Matthys had him arrested and thrown in the tower. Later he was brought to the market place where many of the citizens were also summoned. Matthys gave a speech in which he declared that God was outraged at this man's evil actions because he had defiled an otherwise pure town. He was sentenced to death, but before execution, was stabbed repeatedly with a halberd and thrown back into the tower. Later he was placed against the town wall and Matthys himself shot him in the stomach, causing his eventual death. The gathered crowd was told to profit from the example of the blacksmith and they dutifully sang a hymn before dispersing.

A final instance of the authoritarian control exercised by Matthys may be seen in his decision to regulate information. On March 15, 1534, Matthys proclaimed that all books except the Old and New Testaments (which were deemed solely sufficient for conducting a holy life) were to be brought to the cathedral-square where they were burned to ashes. This anti-intellectualist act represents a complete break with the past, and it allowed Matthys to gain a complete monopoly in the interpretation of Scripture.

On Easter Sunday of 1534, Matthys received what he believed to be a divine command to make a sortie against the besiegers of the city with only a few men to help him. The result was a miserable failure. He was pierced with a pike beheaded, and his body hacked to pieces. His head was later raised on a pole outside the city. Thus, the authoritarian reign of Jan Matthys came to an end Summing up the character of this prophet years later, Obbe Philips wrote:

He was so fierce and bloodthirsty that he brought various people to their deaths; yea he was so violent that even his enemies for their part were terrified of him, and finally in a tumult they became too powerful for him, they were so incensed that they did not just kill him . . . but hacked and chopped him into little pieces.

The death of Matthys allowed for his disciple Jan Bockelszoon van Leiden to assume leadership. Under Bockelszoon, the previously- established authoritarian measures of Matthys continued, reaching a crescendo in his decision to anoint himself king. The kingdom which he set up is legendary in German history, so here I will touch upon only its most salient features.

Bockelszoon began his messianic reign by running naked through the streets of Münster in a wild religious frenzy; he then fell into a silent ecstasy for three days. When his power of speech returned, he announced that God had told him to restructure the town government immediately, which he did by appointing twelve men whom he called the Elders or the Judges of the Tribes of Israel (Ältesten der Stämme Israels) who were placed in charge of all the public, private, spiritual, and worldly affairs of the citizens of Münster the "Israelites." The twelve published a new code of moral law   which provided for strict military organization and a tighter communism of goods. Some workers, for instance, previously employed for money, were forced to continue in their trades without pay, simply as servants of the community. The code also had a very rigid stance on sins committed after (re-)baptism, and all citizens were subjected to demanding laws:

If we are God's sons and have been baptized in Christ then all evil must disappear from among us.... Every one is under the authorities, who have power over all. Because there is no authority outside of God.... If you do evil, fear the authorities. They wield the sword not in vain; they are God's servants, the avengers to punish the evildoer.Sins punishable by death included blasphemy, seditious language, scolding one's parents, adultery, lewd conduct, backbiting, spreading scandal, and even complaining! Bockleszoon's most controversial innovation was polygamy. It was introduced at least partly to emulate the Old Testament patriarchs  and also (perhaps) to compensate for the rapid attrition of male citizens due to their military efforts. Bockelszoon established polygamy on his own authority by announcing that all who resisted it would be considered reprobates and therefore in danger of execution. Persons of marriageable age were ordered to marry; unmarried women had to accept the first man to ask them. This often led to disorder in the competition to see who could acquire the most wives, and thus this latter regulation was ultimately rescinded. Bockelszoon himself, beside remarrying Matthys's widow Divara,ultimately accumulated 15 wives. Bernard Rothmann received second place with nine.

It was not as an ordinary king that Bockelszoon established himself, but as the Messiah of the Last Days. One day a goldsmith declared that the Heavenly Father had revealed to him that Bockelszoon was to be king of the whole world, holding dominion over all kings, princes, and great ones of the earth. He was to inherit the scepter and throne of his forefather David and was to keep them until God should reclaim the kingdom from him. Bockelszoon accepted this man's prophecy and soon enlisted the town preachers to deliver one sermon after another, explaining that the Messiah foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament was indeed none other than Jan van Leiden Bockleszoon. Bockelszoon himself called a town meeting in which he gave a speech to proclaim his new identity, "Now God has chosen me to be king over the entire world. What I do, I must do, because God has ordained me. Dear brothers and sisters, let us now give thanks to God." After the sermon, Bockelszoon led the crowd in singing a psalm, and then everyone returned to their homes.

Bockelszoon did everything possible to represent tangibly the importance of his new position. While the siege continued outside the city, the streets and the gates within were given new names. Sundays and feast days were abolished and the days of the week were renamed on an alphabetical system. Even the names of infants were decided upon by the king according to a special system. Gold and silver coins were minted with inscriptions that emphasized Bockelszoon's unique role: "One King Over All."A special emblem was devised to symbolize Bockelszoon's absolute claim to spiritual and temporal dominion: a globe, representing the world, pierced by two swords and surmounted by a cross inscribed with the words: "One king of righteousness over all ." The king himself wore this emblem modeled in gold as a necklace, his attendants wore it as a badge on their sleeves, and it was accepted in Münster as the official emblem of the state.Bockelszoon set up a throne in the marketplace. Draped with cloth and gold, it towered above the surrounding benches which were allotted to other dignitaries and preachers. Often the king would come there to sit in judgment or to oversee the proclamation of new regulations. Heralded by fanfare, he would arrive on horseback wearing a crown and carrying a scepter. In front of him marched officers of the court, behind him came Knipperdolling, who was now chief minister; Rothmann, who was now the royal orator; and a long line of lesser servants. On either side of his throne stood a page, one holding a copy of the Old Testament, the other a sword. Both symbolized the absolute control which Bockelszoon exercised over the citizens.

Though the king indulged in a life of excess, he subjected his citizens to austerity. Harsh regulations of dress went into effect; for God, Bockelszoon had said, abhorred all superfluity in clothing. Every house was searched and anything that was considered surplus was confiscated. To justify the disparity between his lifestyle and that of the people, he explained that luxury was permitted him because he was completely dead to the world and the flesh.

Finally, though Bockelszoon maintained his grip on power through prophetic outbursts and appeals to Scripture, his primary means of controlling the populace was terror and brute force. Two instances suffice to demonstrate this. The first one came in the wake of Bockelszoon's decree of polygamy when a group of citizens, led by Henry Mollenhecke, attempted to stage a coup and depose him Their efforts failed, however, and Mollenhecke, with forty-eight of his followers was brutally tortured and ultimately beheaded in a macabre process that took four days. Afterwards, two mass graves were dug in the marketplace where all the dead bodies were placed a solemn reminder of Bockelszoon's authority. Another example of Bockelszoon's tactics of intimidation was his decision to execute several women for their sins. One was beheaded simply for denying her husband his marital rights, another for bigamy (the practice of polygamy was solely a male prerogative), and a third for insulting one of Bockelszoon's preachers. Indeed, the king would tolerate no transgressions. It was thus announced that all sinners in the future would be immediately brought before the king and sentenced to death. They would be extirpated from the Chosen People their very memory would be blotted out, and they would find no mercy beyond the grave.

WHILE Bockelszoon was busy with his power and prestige within the city outside the city walls, the siege of Münster, spearheaded by Bishop Franz von Waldeck, continued. By careful diplomatic action, the Bishop had managed to involve both Catholic and Protestant rulers, as well as imperial representatives in support of his cause. Even Philip of Hesse, one of the staunchest supporters of Protestantism, was a faithful supporter. Almost constantly out of funds, the Bishop wrote letters pleading for help to a host of potential patrons: King Ferdinand, elector of Mainz, Trier, Saxony, and Brandenburg; the dukes of Braunschweig, Luneburg, and Saxony; and the bishop of Liege. Although most declined, the bishop raised enough support to maintain the  force which he had gathered and to continue the siege and the occasional skirmishes against the city. Despite political and financial support, the actual military enterprise proved largely unsuccessful throughout 1534 and for the first few months of 1535. Endeavors to blockade the city, to drain the moats, and even to take direct military action ultimately failed. In June, 1535, the defence became more and more hopeless, and John, as a last means of escape, determined upon setting fire to the city. His plan was frustrated by the unexpected capture of the town by the besiegers (24 June, 1535). The King, his lieutenant Knipperdollinck, and his chancellor Krechting were seized, and after six months' imprisonment and torture, executed. As a terrible warning, their bodies were suspended in iron cages from the tower of St. Lambert's church.

Your not going to give your source? Like so much history, I'm sure there is much variation between accounts. Haven't had much time today to look deeper into the matter, but at a quick glance, looks maybe another case of those who were violently persecuted and murdered being accused of being violent themselves when they retaliated. It will take further investigation though.

Here's something from the online Anabaptist encyclopedia:  (emphasis mine)

Reality and appearances were at odds in Münster Anabaptism. Behind the appearance of community of goods was the continuing privileged status of an elite. Behind the polygamous reordering of marriage was the officering of the female majority by men. A few small uprisings in The Netherlands, concluded by an utter fiasco in Amsterdam, were the only fruit of Rothmann's grand proclamation of a worldwide crusade for vengeance on the godless. Münster's authority was already waning after Easter 1534 and, after Münster fell, the majority of Melchiorite Anabaptists turned away from polygamy and a physical kingdom towards the peaceful leadership first of David Joris and then of Menno Simons. -- James M. Stayer


Obviously, the Anabaptists aren't too proud of this and this is coming from their own website.

When searching for the best church, I avoided the church actions and focused on theology.   Unfortunately, all churches who held any powers found ways to abuse it.   Jesus appointed men (Matt 16:18) not angels to lead his church, and therefore, they will fall into the foibles of men.   

There is an advantage of having church and state together.  When regular people get power, they seem not
to know how to handle it, while in a church-state, they are experts of the dealings of power, and therefore are not as likely to do abusive actions.   I prefer to live in a country and time when church and state are separated, but, at the same time,  the church/state period of the church (Constantine to 1450) did clarify a host of
religious issues so that we as moderns don't need to think about them anymore.

Quote from: trifecta on Fri Jan 08, 2016 - 19:45:49
Here's something from the online Anabaptist encyclopedia:  (emphasis mine)

Reality and appearances were at odds in Münster Anabaptism. Behind the appearance of community of goods was the continuing privileged status of an elite. Behind the polygamous reordering of marriage was the officering of the female majority by men. A few small uprisings in The Netherlands, concluded by an utter fiasco in Amsterdam, were the only fruit of Rothmann's grand proclamation of a worldwide crusade for vengeance on the godless. Münster's authority was already waning after Easter 1534 and, after Münster fell, the majority of Melchiorite Anabaptists turned away from polygamy and a physical kingdom towards the peaceful leadership first of David Joris and then of Menno Simons. -- James M. Stayer


Obviously, the Anabaptists aren't too proud of this and this is coming from their own website.

When searching for the best church, I avoided the church actions and focused on theology.   Unfortunately, all churches who held any powers found ways to abuse it.   Jesus appointed men (Matt 16:18) not angels to lead his church, and therefore, they will fall into the foibles of men.   

There is an advantage of having church and state together.  When regular people get power, they seem not
to know how to handle it, while in a church-state, they are experts of the dealings of power, and therefore are not as likely to do abusive actions.   I prefer to live in a country and time when church and state are separated, but, at the same time,  the church/state period of the church (Constantine to 1450) did clarify a host of
religious issues so that we as moderns don't need to think about them anymore.

A most ignorant statement. Though the papacy is the mother of a united "Christian" church and state, even she suffered greatly under the same when she was not the majority, and complains about the same when defending herself from those who would point out her abusive history. History proves that no religion is more abusive than one that has the approval and support of the state. Such unholy relations do not produce experts, they produce tyrants.

Nor is this Anabaptist subject as clear cut as being represented. As usual, historical records are contaminated with bias and misinformation starting with those who won the day at ground zero, and those who wish to continue the misinformation campaign, or are simply to lazy to look deeper into the subject. I will provide some contrasting views when time allows.

The following link is to the book, General History of the Baptist Denomination, by David Benedict. Go to chapter six, which is about the Munster incident, for a different take on the event and that which lead up to it.

http://nashpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Baptist_History/Old_Baptist_Books/A-General-History-of-the-Baptist-Denomination-in-America-David-Benedict-vol1.pdf

Amo,

Ignorant statement?   Well, I'll admit I don't know much about this Anabaptist controversy, although I do know a bit about that movement.

Where in the Bible do you find separation of church and state.  In fact, you find more the opposite.  Does God have control over everything - except government?   Was does Paul say about rulers--they are appointed by God?  The governments are upon whose shoulders?

As I said in my post, I prefer to live in an era where we have separation of church and state, especially since I am not a Protestant in a Protestant country (US).  But there is something to be said for the Constantine era:  They clarified Christian doctrine, removed all kinds of heresy, and defined Christian belief so well that we don't have these controversies any more (with the exception of JWs).   

You only look at history as Catholic church abusing its power.  There is some truth to that, but it is a narrow view of history--and certainly a modern one.  You only look at the problems of the RCC, but even Calvin said
the church was good for about 1300 years before going off the rails.

It is very easy to reject all churches (as in this thread) because of the actions of some jerks.  Yet Jesus entrusted his Church to men, not a book.   

Quote from: trifecta on Sat Jan 16, 2016 - 11:33:11
Amo,

Ignorant statement?   Well, I'll admit I don't know much about this Anabaptist controversy, although I do know a bit about that movement.

Where in the Bible do you find separation of church and state.  In fact, you find more the opposite.  Does God have control over everything - except government?   Was does Paul say about rulers--they are appointed by God?  The governments are upon whose shoulders?

As I said in my post, I prefer to live in an era where we have separation of church and state, especially since I am not a Protestant in a Protestant country (US).  But there is something to be said for the Constantine era:  They clarified Christian doctrine, removed all kinds of heresy, and defined Christian belief so well that we don't have these controversies any more (with the exception of JWs).   

You only look at history as Catholic church abusing its power.  There is some truth to that, but it is a narrow view of history--and certainly a modern one.  You only look at the problems of the RCC, but even Calvin said
the church was good for about 1300 years before going off the rails.

It is very easy to reject all churches (as in this thread) because of the actions of some jerks.  Yet Jesus entrusted his Church to men, not a book.

There has always been controversy, and always will be. Mandated conformity to the faith under compulsion from the state has nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ at all. It never has, and it never will. Neither Christ nor any of His apostles ever appealed to the state to support or enhance the giving of the gospel. To the contrary, both plainly tight that the power of Christ's church was and will ever be the Holy Spirit of God by way of conviction and conversion, and never by way of force or coercion manipulated by the power of the church combined with the state. This is the methodology of Babylon the Great who commits fornication with the kings of this earth to this very end.


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.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Mt 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Babylon confounds the church and this world, Christ's church does no such thing. Constantine did not establish Christ's church in any way shape or form. He compromised it with the help of corrupted bishops and clergy seeking power. He turned the church away from being persecuted as Christ's followers just as Christ predicted for the same, into those persecuting in Christ's name. The latter of course being utter corruption and ruin of true Christianity. Observe the following, all emphasis mine -

"Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus, to the heretics: Understand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction: All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; fit subjects for the fabulous follies of the stage: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves, demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And indeed it is well to turn one's ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one's own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure? "Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times; I mean the impious and wretched doublemindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error, to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded (as before said), that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings; I mean all the houses of prayer (if such be worthy of the name) which belong to heretics, and that these be made over without delay to the Catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public." ( Eusebius's- "Life of Constantine," book 3, chaps. 64, 65. )

How about that, a man who still worships the sun, dictating correct doctrine and commanding all to become Catholic. I suppose this is your idea of setting things straight, is it not. What do you think, that Jesus Christ couldn't have convinced the kings and emporers of this world to to establish His church if He so desired? You speak of the establishment of Babylon the Great, not the church of Jesus Christ.

Quote from: trifecta on Sat Jan 16, 2016 - 11:33:11
Amo,

Ignorant statement?   Well, I'll admit I don't know much about this Anabaptist controversy, although I do know a bit about that movement.

Where in the Bible do you find separation of church and state.  In fact, you find more the opposite.  Does God have control over everything - except government?   Was does Paul say about rulers--they are appointed by God?  The governments are upon whose shoulders?

As I said in my post, I prefer to live in an era where we have separation of church and state, especially since I am not a Protestant in a Protestant country (US).  But there is something to be said for the Constantine era:  They clarified Christian doctrine, removed all kinds of heresy, and defined Christian belief so well that we don't have these controversies any more (with the exception of JWs).   

You only look at history as Catholic church abusing its power.  There is some truth to that, but it is a narrow view of history--and certainly a modern one.  You only look at the problems of the RCC, but even Calvin said
the church was good for about 1300 years before going off the rails.

It is very easy to reject all churches (as in this thread) because of the actions of some jerks.  Yet Jesus entrusted his Church to men, not a book.

I'm not sure where you get your information, since though you wish to bring Calvin into the picture, very well then. All emphasis in the following is mine.





1196
11. Still, as in ancient times, there remained among, the Jews certain special privileges of a Church, so in the present day we deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. When the Lord had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was preserved not so much by them as by its own strength, supported by which it withstood their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty and constancy of the divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there, and his faith could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by their impure hands as not still to be a true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Hence the children who were born to them the Lord called his own (Ezekiel 16:20), though, unless by special blessing, they in no respect belonged to him. So having deposited his covenant in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when these countries were oppressed by the tyranny of Antichrist, He, in order that his covenant might remain inviolable. first preserved baptism there as an evidence of the covenant: — baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. But as in pulling down buildings the foundations and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did not suffer Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to level it with the ground (though, to punish the ingratitude of men who had despised his word, he allowed a fearful shaking and dismembering to take place), but was pleased that amid the devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.

12. Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine.

17 Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (Daniel 9:27; 2 Thessalonians 2:4); we regard the Roman Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. 18 By placing his seat in the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as to destroy the name either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious that we do not at all deny that churches remain under his
1197
tyranny; churches, however, which by sacrilegious impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where Christ lies halfburied, the, Gospel is suppressed, piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost abolished; where, in short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of Babylon rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain — symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church.


[/b]
1241
13. Whoever will duly examine and weigh the whole form of ecclesiastical government as now existing in the Papacy, will find that there is no kind of spoliation in which robbers act more licentiously, without law or measure. Certainly all things are so unlike, nay, so opposed to the institution of Christ, have so degenerated from the ancient customs and practices of the Church, are so repugnant to nature and reason, that a greater injury cannot be done to Christ than to use his name in defending, this disorderly rule. We (say they) are the pillars of the Church, the priests of religion, the vicegerents of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because the apostolic authority has come to us by succession, As if they were speaking to stocks, they perpetually plume themselves on these absurdities. Whenever they make such boasts, I, in my turn, will ask, What have they in common with the apostles? We are not now treating of some hereditary honor which can come to men while they are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so greatly shun. In like manner when we maintain that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately object that their venerable hierarchy has often been extolled by great and holy men, as if the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy or spiritual government handed down to them by the apostles, ever dreamed of that shapeless and dreary chaos where bishoprics are held from the most part by ignorant asses, who do not even know the first and ordinary rudiments of the faith, or occasionally by boys who have just left their nurse; or if any are more learned (this, however, is a rare case), they regard the episcopal office as nothing else than a title of magnificence and splendor, where the rectors of churches no more think of feeding the flock than a cobbler does of ploughing, where all things are so confounded by a confusion worse than that of Babel, that no genuine trace of Paternal government is any longer to be seen.




4. The controversy concerning the title of universal bishop arose at length in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of John of Constantinople. For he wished to make himself universal, a thing which do other had ever attempted. In that controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right which belonged to him, but he strongly insists that the appellation is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay the forerunner of Antichrist. "The whole Church falls from its state, if he who is,called universal falls" (Greg. Lib. iv. Ep. 76). Again, "It is very difficult to bear patlently that one who is our brother and fellow bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of Antichrist are already near? For he is imitating him, who, despising the company of angels, attempted to ascend the pinnacle of greatness" (Lib. 4. Ep. 76). He elsewhere says to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: "None of my predecessors ever
1270
desired to use this profane term: for if one patriarch is called universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch in others. But far be it from any Christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honor of his brethren" (Lib. 4. Ep. 80). "To consent to that impious term is nothing else than to lose the faith" (Lib. 4. Ep. 83). "What we owe to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we owe to the suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence, for everyone that calls himself, or desires to be called, universal priest, is by his pride a forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to others" (Lib. 7. Ep. 154). Thus, again, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, "I said, that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected the presumption of a superstitious and haughty term which the first apostate invented; and (to say nothing of the injury to your honor) if one bishop is called universal, the whole Church goes to ruin when that universal bishop falls" (Lib. 6. Ep. 188). But when he writes, that this honor was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon (Lib. 4. Ep. 76, 80; Lib. vii. Ep. 76), he says what has no semblance of truth; nothing of the kind is found among the acts of that council. And Leo himself, who, in many letters, impugns the decree which was then made in honor of the See of Constantinople, undoubtedly would not have omitted this argument, which was the most plausible of all, if it was true that he himself repudiated what was given to him. One who, in other respects, was rather too desirous of honor, would not have omitted what would have been to his praise. Gregory, therefore, is incorrect in saying, that that title was conferred on the Roman See by the Council of Chalcedon; not to mention how ridiculous it is for him to say, that it proceeded from that sacred council, and yet to term it wicked. profane, nefarious proud, and blasphemous, nay, devised by the devil, and promulgated by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds, that his predecessor refused it, lest by that which was given to one individually, all priests should be deprived of their due honor. In another place, he says, "None ever wished to be called by such a name; none arrogated this rash name to himself, lest, by seKing on the honor of supremacy in the office of the Pontificate, he might seem to deny it to all his brethren" (Gregor. Lib. iv. Ep. 82).


21. I will not treat with them on the strictest terms. In opposition to their great insolence, some would quote the language which Cyprian used to the bishops in the council over which he presided: "None of us styles himself bishop of bishops, or forces his colleagues to the necessity of obeying by the tyranny of terror." Some might object what was long after decreed at Carthage, "Let no one be called the prince of priests or first bishop;" and
1285
might gather many proofs from history, and canons from councils, and many passages from ancient writers, which bring the Roman Pontiff into due order. But these I omit, that I may not seem to press too hard upon them. However, let these worthy defenders of the Roman See tell me with what face they can defend the title of universal bishop, while they see it so often anathematised by Gregory. If effect is to be given to his testimony, then they, by making their Pontiff universal, declare him to be Antichrist. The name of head was not more approved. For Gregory thus speaks: "Peter was the chief member in the body, John, Andrew, and James, the heads of particular communities. All, however, are under one head members of the Church: nay, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all perfecting the body of the Lord, are constituted members: none of them ever wished to be styled universal" (Gregor. Lib. iv. Ep. 83). When the Pontiff arrogates to himself the power of ordering, he little accords with what Gregory elsewhere says. For Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, having said that he had received an order from him, he replies in this manner: "This word order I beg you to take out of my hearing, for I know who I am, and who you are: in station you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I therefore did not order, but took care to suggest what seemed useful" (Gregor. Lib. vii. Ep. 80). When the Pope extends his jurisdiction without limit, he does great and atrocious injustice not only to other bishops, but to each single church, tearing and dismembering them, that he may build his see upon their ruins. When he exempts himself from all tribunals, and wishes to reign in the manner of a tyrant, holding his own caprice to be his only law, the thing is too insulting, and too foreign to ecclesiastical rule, to be on any account submitted to. It is altogether abhorrent, not only from pious feeling, but also from common sense.


23. Lastly, Although all these things were granted, an entirely new question arises, when we deny that there is at Rome a Church in which privileges of this nature can reside; when we deny that there is a bishop to sustain the dignity of these privileges. Assume, therefore, that all these things are true (though we have already extorted the contrary from them). that Peter was by the words of Christ constituted head of the universal Church, and that the honor thus conferred upon him he deposited in the
1287
Roman See, that this was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient Church, and confirmed by long use; that supreme power was always with one consent devolved by all on the Roman Pontiff, that while he was the judge of all causes and all men, he was subject to the judgment of none. Let even more be conceded to them if they will, I answer, in one word, that none of these things avail if there be not a Church and a Bishop at Rome. They must of necessity concede to me that she is not a mother of churches who is not herself a church, that he cannot be the chief of bishops who is not himself a bishop. Would they then have the Apostolic See at Rome? Let them give me a true and lawful apostleship. Would they have a supreme pontiff, let them give me a bishop. But how? Where will they show me any semblance of a church? They, no doubt, talk of one, and have it ever in their mouths. But surely the Church is recognized by certain marks, and bishopric is the name of an office. I am not now speaking of the people but of the government, which ought perpetually to be conspicuous in the Church. Where, then, is a ministry such as the institution of Christ requires? Let us remember what was formerly said of the duty of presbyters and bishops. If we bring the office of cardinals to that test, we will acknowledge that they are nothing less than presbyters. But I should like to know what one quality of a bishop the Pope himself has? The first point in the office of a bishop is to instruct the people in the word of God; the second and next to it is to administer the sacraments; the third is to admonish and exhort, to correct those who are in fault, and restrain the people by holy discipline. Which of these things does he do? Nay, which of these things does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, on what ground they will have him to be regarded as a bishop, who does not even in semblance touch any part of the duty with his little finger.

24. It is not With a bishop as With a king; the latter, though he does not execute the proper duty of a king, nevertheless retains the title and the honor; but in deciding on a bishop respect is had to the command of Christ, to which effect ought always to be given in the Church. Let the Romanists then untie this knot. I deny that their pontiff is the prince of bishops, seeing he is no bishop. This allegation of mine they must prove to be false if they would succeed in theirs. What then do I maintain? That he has nothing proper to a bishop, but is in all things the opposite of a bishop. But with what shall I here begin? With doctrine or with morals?
1288
What shall I say, or what shall I pass in silence, or where shall I end? This I maintain: while in the present day the world is so inundated with perverse and impious doctrines, so full of all kinds of superstition, so blinded by error and sunk in idolatry, there is not one of them which has not emanated from the Papacy, or at least been confirmed by it. Nor is there any other reason why the pontiffs are so enraged against the reviving doctrine of the Gospel, why they stretch every nerve to oppress it, and urge all kings and princes to cruelty, than just that they see their whole dominion tottering and falling to pieces the moment the Gospel of Christ prevails. Leo was cruel and Clement sanguinary, Paul is truculent. But in assailing the truth, it is not so much natural temper that impels them as the conviction that they have no other method of maintaining their power. Therefore, seeing they cannot be safe unless they put Christ to flight, they labor in this cause as if they were fighting for their altars and hearths, for their own lives and those of their adherents. What then? Shall we recognise the Apostolic See where we see nothing but horrible apostacy? Shall he be the vicar of Christ who, by his furious efforts in persecuting the Gospel, plainly declares himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be the successor of Peter who goes about with fire and sword demolishing everything that Peter built? Shall he be the Head of the Church who, after dissevering the Church from Christ, her only true Head, tears and lacerates her members? Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist she ceased to be what she was.

25. To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest anyone object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Daniel 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext. and lurks under the
1289
name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faitlh But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, Which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Daniel 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honor and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.

26. Let the Romanists now go and oppose us with antiquity; as if, amid such a complete change in every respect, the honor of the See can continue where there is no See. Eusebius says that God, to make way for his vengeance, transferred the Church which was at Jerusalem to Pella (Euseb. Lib. iii. cap. 5). What we are told was once done may have been done repeatedly. Hence it is too absurd and ridiculous so to fix the honor of the primacy to a particular spot, as that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the chief adversary of the Gospel, the greatest devastator and waster of the Church, the most cruel slayer and murderer of the saints should be, nevertheless, regarded as the vicegerent of Christ, the successor of Peter, the first priest of the Church, merely because he occupies what was formerly the first of all sees. I do not say how great the difference is between the chancery of the Pope and well regulated order in the Church; although this one fact might well set the question at rest. For no man of sound mind will include the episcopate in lead and bulls, much less in that administration of captions and circumscriptions, in which the spiritual government of the Pope is supposed to consist. It has therefore been elegantly said, that that vaunted Roman Church was long ago converted
1290
into a temporal court, the only thing which is now seen at Rome. I am not here speaking of the vices of individuals, but demonstrating that the Papacy itself is diametrically opposed to the ecclesiastical system.

Hmmm. . .

Maybe I'm getting Luther and Calvin mixed up.  But Calvin did like the the first 500 years of the church-maybe more:

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations.  (Institutes 1.11.13, p. 113; emphasis mine)

More at:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/02/10/the-great-apostasy-john-calvin-and-the-fall-of-the-church/

Calvin, of course, was wrong about "visual representations" which were everywhere and there is still evidence of those icons and pictures.

Quote
How about that, a man who still worships the sun, dictating correct doctrine and commanding all to become Catholic.

Correct doctrine was not made (actually clarified) by Constantine but by ecumenical council -- big difference.  Constantine's role was to help organize the council but he did not make the decisions.  Religious people did that.  It was unthinkable that a God who has control over all things  would not include the government.  (The Bible says this too). 

Quote
I suppose this is your idea of setting things straight, is it not.

Well, yeah, sort of.  The ecumenical councils resolved the religious issues of the day as did the first council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Quote
What do you think, that Jesus Christ couldn't have convinced the kings and emporers of this world to to establish His church if He so desired?

Let's look at what really happened.  It would be nice if people in the past picked up a Bible (not really accessible to the poor man until 1700)  and believed from there, but that is not how it happened-for the most part. Yeah, you had the Bereans in Acts and there was some of that. But the Church really takes off after Constantine (who is mistakenly thought to make Christianity the state religion- that was Justinian). 
In my spriritual family tree (part of it anyway), Prince Vladimir takes everyone in Kiev and goes into the river for a mass baptism of Kievan 'rus.   Forced?   Sort of, but it gave me part of my Christian heritage.

Am I glad the Romans and the Kievans made that people turn back on  their pagan past?  Yes!

Quote
You speak of the establishment of Babylon the Great, not the church of Jesus Christ.

The problem here is the Church of Jesus Christ would have to become Babylon the Great, and Jesus promised that wouldn't happen  Matt 16:18.    Now, I am not RCC but I have to think that this same church that Jesus established can't go *that* far into badness.

The problem here is the Church of Jesus Christ would have to become Babylon the Great, and Jesus promised that wouldn't happen  Matt 16:18.    Now, I am not RCC but I have to think that this same church that Jesus established can't go *that* far into badness.

I hate to bring this up...  but it's the truth.  The RCC did go "that" far into darkness and sin with the molestation scandal that went deep and wide into the hierarchy of the church.  Absolute evil in the church. 

The problem here is the Church of Jesus Christ would have to become Babylon the Great, and Jesus promised that wouldn't happen  Matt 16:18.    Now, I am not RCC but I have to think that this same church that Jesus established can't go *that* far into badness.

Do you really know what Babylon the Great is?  The metaphor is that its that great city which is fallen. Study Rev 18. and the call for Gods people to come out of her. There is a church order that is intricately in bed with the world systems of Babylon Political, religious and monetary. They comprise the whole world systems  This church sleeps with the political systems of this world. No other church other than the RCC fits this bill. Together they are Babylon the great city . Come out of her my people and be no more partakers of her sins.  Much of the church protestant and catholic alike have delved in Babylon. They look for political solutions and posterity.   

QuoteHmmm. . .

Maybe I'm getting Luther and Calvin mixed up.  But Calvin did like the the first 500 years of the church-maybe more:

First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations.  (Institutes 1.11.13, p. 113; emphasis mine)

More at:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2014/02/10/the-great-apostasy-john-calvin-and-the-fall-of-the-church/

Calvin, of course, was wrong about "visual representations" which were everywhere and there is still evidence of those icons and pictures.

The main problem lies in the fact that the corruption of "Christianity" took place over several hundreds of years, and there were many splinter churches involved to a greater or lesser degree, others hardly at all.

The NT though, does not address the issue specifically, no doubt because it was a non issue at the time. Even if visual representations were a right direction to head, they would have and did develop over time. They were therefore obviously, not a part of the primitive church established by Christ and His Apostles. This is made all the more evident from the teachings of Christ and Paul in particular pointing to that which was above and beyond the types and symbols of the old covenant. Those things which only dimly represented that which was and is real.

QuoteCorrect doctrine was not made (actually clarified) by Constantine but by ecumenical council -- big difference.  Constantine's role was to help organize the council but he did not make the decisions.  Religious people did that.  It was unthinkable that a God who has control over all things  would not include the government.  (The Bible says this too). 

You are confounding the fact that God is ultimately in control of all things, with His direct leadership of those who have entered into the new covenant relationship with Him, through His Son Jesus Christ. They are two very different and distinct realities. The latter is the voluntary submission of those who believe in and trust God completely with their lives, because His pure, righteous, and holy intentions have been revealed to them through His Son Jesus Christ. The former, who choose not to submit by way of the freedom to do so which God Himself has provided, simply cannot escape the ultimate designs of the One within whose reality they exist. Though they have been given the freedom to reject God and all that He stands for if they so desire, which they can and do, they cannot escape the ultimate desired outcome of Him apart from whom they would not exist. 

The Lord Jesus Christ established His church not only without any involvement or support from earthly government, but in literal and spiritual contradiction to the same. Thereby establishing a power upon this earth, far above and beyond the grasp of all earthly powers. Which power neither seeks to control or dominate any earthly powers, nor will allow for any control or dominance upon itself by the same. Both scenarios representing a radical departure from that eternal kingdom which Jesus Christ Himself established upon this earth.

Christ's kingdom simply is not of this world, nor should it ever be encumbered and or diluted by the same. What Constantine and apostate "Christians" began in their day, was this exact process. Which process lead to untold suffering and misery for millions. Apostate "Christians" were seeking power and influence in and of this world, while a pagan emperor was seeking greater power and influence over his people by taking a dominant role among the large number of converts to a new religion which rose within his empire. Neither motive was pure or holy in any sense, and they have never had anything to do with Christ's true church, its purpose and or mission upon this earth. To the contrary, Christ's church and these apostate powers do always war against each other.

Correct doctrine is clarified by scripture alone, not any emperor, king, or ecumenical council. All of them, and us, are subject to the word of God. We will be judged by and in relation to His word. Nothing these kings, emperors, or ecumenical councils have determined, will be regarded at all in the judgment. They will be nothing then, and they are nothing now, but for those who will put their faith and confidence in them rather than the word of God, to their demise.

Jn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

QuoteWell, yeah, sort of.  The ecumenical councils resolved the religious issues of the day as did the first council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

No they did not. Nor did they avail themselves of the same power at all which presided over the council at Jerusalem.

Acts 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

The church, apostles, and elders held the council presided over by the Holy Spirit of God, not a pagan emperor.  There were no civil authorities of this world present, or consulted. The matters were resolved wholly by the powers that be of Christ's church, men who personally demonstrated the power and influence of the Holy Spirit of God. Men who ever sought after the same, rather and over the powers that be of this world.

The Bishops and civil authorities represented at the councils you speak of, were a far cry from the same. The main quarrel to be resolved among the various factions of "Christianity" during the councils which Constantine presided over, had more to do with which one would be the determined state enforced "Christianity". The entire purpose and motives of those involved was completely different than that of those you refer to in Acts 15. These men were not seeking to establish Christ's church, so much as they were seeking to acquire the power of the state unto their own aggrandizement by the same. They were the for-runners of the establishment of Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and the abominations of earth.

QuoteLet's look at what really happened.  It would be nice if people in the past picked up a Bible (not really accessible to the poor man until 1700)  and believed from there, but that is not how it happened-for the most part. Yeah, you had the Bereans in Acts and there was some of that. But the Church really takes off after Constantine (who is mistakenly thought to make Christianity the state religion- that was Justinian). 
In my spriritual family tree (part of it anyway), Prince Vladimir takes everyone in Kiev and goes into the river for a mass baptism of Kievan 'rus.   Forced?   Sort of, but it gave me part of my Christian heritage.

People of the past did have the scriptures which Christ Himself referred too, then they had the eye witness account of the apostles in both verbal and written form, and their letters to the churches as well. It was not until some centuries after Christ and the apostles, that the apostate church used the state to help them get the scriptures out of the hands of the people.

Your facts are pretty messed up. The growth of Christianity was most true and rapid perhaps, during the first two centuries of its existence. It flourished and spread rapidly by the power of the Holy Spirit of God while being outlawed and persecuted by the governing powers of this world. Perhaps you should read your New Testament again, and understand that primitive Christianity was a power that the most powerful governing body of this world could not squelch or contain.

The fact is, Christianity was well on its way to conquering the pagan Roman Empire, before it became corrupted from within and fell to the same. This, by seeking to establish itself by the power of the kings of this earth, rather than the power of the King of kings and His Holy Spirit. You call the beginnings of state forced conversions and established religious ceremonies the point at which Christ's church really takes off, you are deceived. Christ established His church and sent it forth victorious. Constantine and corrupted Bishops began the process of hopelessly bogging "Christianity" down with the weight of the politics and intrigues of this world.

Justinian helped finalize a process begun even before Constantine, but not politically realized until him. Their creation most certainly was not the church of Christ, but rather the church of anti-Christ, BABYLON THE GREAT.

QuoteAm I glad the Romans and the Kievans made that people turn back on  their pagan past?  Yes!

They didn't make anyone turn back from their pagan past, they simply amalgamated their pagan ceremonies and doctrines with apostate "Christianity" in order to bring both together under their control. Nothing to do with Christ's church and its mission.

QuoteThe problem here is the Church of Jesus Christ would have to become Babylon the Great, and Jesus promised that wouldn't happen  Matt 16:18.    Now, I am not RCC but I have to think that this same church that Jesus established can't go *that* far into badness.

It didn't. The true church and Babylon separated. Babylon persecuted the true church. As became immediately evident, when the church connected to the state during the time of Constantine, and began to persecute rather than be persecuted. Christ said His followers would be persecuted like Him, not that they would be supported by the state and persecute others. This is not rocket science.

Isn't it convenient that the church took "several hundred years" to apostacize and therefore we can interpret the Bible anyway we want to?   Futhermore, when we disagree, Protestantism offers no way to resolve the issue, while the early church had the ecumenical councils. 

Not only do we have evidence of early drawings of Christian figures, it would just make sense to have them.  The big apostacy of the time was gnosticism- the idea that Jesus wasn't really a man but some kind of spiritual being, wouldn't it make sense to show the human aspect of Jesus?

Even deeper, doesn't the fact that God became man require that we represent that physical image rather than ignore it?

Quote from: trifecta on Fri Jan 22, 2016 - 22:47:40
Isn't it convenient that the church took "several hundred years" to apostacize and therefore we can interpret the Bible anyway we want to?   Futhermore, when we disagree, Protestantism offers no way to resolve the issue, while the early church had the ecumenical councils. 

Not only do we have evidence of early drawings of Christian figures, it would just make sense to have them.  The big apostacy of the time was gnosticism- the idea that Jesus wasn't really a man but some kind of spiritual being, wouldn't it make sense to show the human aspect of Jesus?

Even deeper, doesn't the fact that God became man require that we represent that physical image rather than ignore it?

I'm not hung up upon figures or images, types or symbols, apostasy goes a lot deeper than that. Though without question, bowing down before images is in fact a violation of the second commandment of God. Yes, on this earth one can interpret the Bible any way they want to without being molested or persecuted by the true church of Christ for doing so. Christ's church has no commission to do any such thing, though it should certainly, and has certainly maintained and defended the truth against all lies. This only by the power of reason and conviction though, never compulsion. We will either pick up our cross and follow the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on this one, or we will not. God's Son became one with humanity, in order to demonstrate how His own should submit to the Father in all things, and convict and convert others to this mind set also. How dare humanity supersede the living example and authority of Jesus Christ the Son of God on this or any other issue. Especially those professing to be His followers.

What is your complaint against Protestantism, but they allow for disagreement with their own views without molesting those who do? What a terrible price to have to pay for freedom, allowing others to disagree with you. Please do show us where Jesus or the apostles admonished us to force the truth upon anyone. To acquire the power of the state to force such compliance or acceptance of the truth in Christ Jesus. You will not because you cannot. All who do such have set themselves up in the place of God, assuming a prerogative which belongs only to God. Which prerogative God Himself has clearly demonstrated through the life and death of His Son Jesus Christ, He has no intention to exercise. Who are you or anyone else, to take this prerogative upon yourselves, but verily anti-christ?

2 Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Firstly, yeah, involuntary compunction is not exactly ideal.   But if the people accept it, as they did
in Kievan Rus, that is but one way that God works.  You have one model to come to Christ, but
even today it's unusual.  I'm not saying it isn't special, but it's not so common.  Why are most
people Christian?  Family -  usually growing up in an environment where Jesus is pleasant sounding to
the ears and Marriage -  marrying someone in the faith.  I don't disparage those people.

What do I have against Protestantism?  Good question.  First, though,  I've learned a lot from them and
many are good Christians, but that doesn't make them correct.   1) sola scriptura -  The idea that Jesus
entrusted his followers to a book not flesh and blood people is simply not scriptural.  2) Scriptures as a replacement of the church -  it's an  absurd thought and one that leads to much division and no resolution on disagreement. 
3) Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli did not understand eastern culture -  It's a group thing and their focus
(and yours) is solely on the individual - not the society.   Why is this important?  4) Protestant leaders
don't understand the early church --for reason number three  5) Protestants had to justify that they replaced the RCC as the "new church" because their doctrine is more correct is not provable.  Yes, the RCC did some bad things - but that doesn't make Protestant doctrine more correct.   Put a neutral person to judge who interprets Scripture better - the Catholic or the Protestant--you won't get a clear winner. 6) sola fide and pat answers about salvation.  Sure, the Scripture talks about faith without works, but it also talks about obeying the commandments and doing good works (Matt 25).   Any neutral reading of scripture would show that
salvation is not spelled out as an easy formula - but that doesn't bother certain Protestants. 

In summary, Protestants' claim to be the real church is not based on a spiritual inheritance but  on the idea that they interpret the Scriptures better than the RCC does.  I don't really have a problem with that idea - but Protestant interpretation of Scripture is not better because it ignores significant parts of Scripture (e.g., James as the epistle of straw).   Yet at the same time, they claim their unique beliefs are based only on Scripture.  The truth is their doctrine is based on their reformation theology, which is not historical, and not as appealing as saying it is based on Scripture. 

I wondering if we are the only ones reading this dialogue?

QuoteFirstly, yeah, involuntary compunction is not exactly ideal.   But if the people accept it, as they did
in Kievan Rus, that is but one way that God works.  You have one model to come to Christ, but
even today it's unusual.  I'm not saying it isn't special, but it's not so common.  Why are most
people Christian?  Family -  usually growing up in an environment where Jesus is pleasant sounding to
the ears and Marriage -  marrying someone in the faith.  I don't disparage those people.

Those people are not of God's kingdom, or the true church of Christ. Unless one has been convicted and converted by their own experience and choice, they are simply another of this world, regardless of what faith they profess for whatever other reason. No one can be forced or manipulated into the kingdom of God, nor can they inherit such from anyone else, nor can any family member save another. God does not ever work through a denomination which forces itself upon others. If force were acceptable to God, there would be no sin problem, or gospel to preach. Everyone would submit immediately, and be happy about it.

QuoteWhat do I have against Protestantism?  Good question.  First, though,  I've learned a lot from them and
many are good Christians, but that doesn't make them correct.   1) sola scriptura -  The idea that Jesus
entrusted his followers to a book not flesh and blood people is simply not scriptural.

It takes both, not just one or the other. The word of God though, is above all earthly authority. The true church correctly interprets and submits to God's word. It is the exact plan of the devil to create as many false churches as possible, all claiming to be the real of course, to create as much confusion as possible for those who would approach and understand their God. All denominations that use compulsion or unite with the state, are false churches. Christ and His apostles gave no such example whatsoever, to the contrary they spoke and exemplified to the exact opposite effect.


Lk 20:21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no? 23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me? 24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's. 25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. 26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.


Jn 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 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. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.


Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Mk 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


Lk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. 25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Jn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Jn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

Lk 8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.


Jn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.


Shall I go on. God's word is not built upon and or dependent upon the church. His church is built upon and completely dependent upon His word. It is apostate "Christianity" alone, that twists this truth around. This is most often because, they are already ignoring or presuming to have greater authority than the words of Christ, and scripture which have been given to us as the standard.

Quote2) Scriptures as a replacement of the church -  it's an  absurd thought and one that leads to much division and no resolution on disagreement.

The scriptures are not a replacement for the church, they are the standard, authority, and power of the church. Which is why the true church has no need to enlist the aid of government or any other worldly power to enforce their teachings or gain converts. The preaching of the word of God is backed up by the power of the Holy Spirit of God who alone can convict and convert even one single sinner, let alone the entire world. The true church understands that there is no greater power on earth than the word of God. Thus, they seek no greater power or authority to aid them in their quest, their faith is in God's word not anything of this world.

Those false churches which exalt themselves above the word of God, must lean on the power of state or other powers of this world, because they do not have the power of the Holy Spirit of God. They have abandoned the power of the word and thus the Holy Spirit, in favor of the power of the state.

Jn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Quote3) Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli did not understand eastern culture -  It's a group thing and their focus(and yours) is solely on the individual - not the society.   Why is this important?

Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli understood that the gospel is to each and every individual on earth. There is no such a thing as group salvation, or conversion, accepting that conversion includes a personal decision by everyone in the group. Nevertheless true Christianity involves a close personal walk with the Lord Jesus Christ by each individual within the same. No society could benefit any better than if each individual in that society were convicted and converted. Nor can true Christianity work any other way. Any attempt to make Christianity societal, apart from personal individual conversion can only produce watered down churches of either popularity, or by compulsion. Both signs of false "Christianity".

Quote4) Protestant leaders don't understand the early church --for reason number three

Protestant leaders, and all the rest of us, have the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles as the guide for truth. Neither they or any other human being on earth is dependent at all on eastern culture or any kind of understanding about it, for salvation. Jesus Christ did not come to establish or endorse any earthly culture or nation, but to call all of every nation and culture out of this present world and into the kingdom of God. Which requires different peoples of every culture to sacrifice certain elements of their culture which do not fit into the kingdom of God. Never the other way around.

Quote5) Protestants had to justify that they replaced the RCC as the "new church" because their doctrine is more correct is not provable.  Yes, the RCC did some bad things - but that doesn't make Protestant doctrine more correct.

The RCC did a whole lot of bad things. Most Protestant Reformers were first RCC. Of course this is understandable when it is illegal to be anything else. They wished to reform the RCC in accordance with scripture, before they were kicked out and threatened with death for doing so. They were routinely persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered as many others were also throughout history with church approval. Which church absolutely did not represent Jesus Christ in any way shape or form. All who never joined or left her ranks were absolutely correct for doing so. All who did so desiring to follow the scriptures rather than men or institutions were absolutely correct in doing so, and a better representation of the Lord Jesus Christ for doing so as well.

QuotePut a neutral person to judge who interprets Scripture better - the Catholic or the Protestant--you won't get a clear winner.

Again, most reformers learned that which they disagreed with the RCC on, while they were RCC. It wasn't a matter of Catholic or Protestant at first, this only came later, when the latter existed in enough numbers to make it so. Apart from this, there were many Christians long before them who disagreed with the RCC, and were never a part of them. Many of these being persecuted and killed by them also for not submitting to their usurped authority.

Quote6) sola fide and pat answers about salvation.  Sure, the Scripture talks about faith without works, but it also talks about obeying the commandments and doing good works (Matt 25).   Any neutral reading of scripture would show that
salvation is not spelled out as an easy formula - but that doesn't bother certain Protestants.

This has been a debate even among Protestants it seems forever. I can understand the reaction though, from those who found that salvation is by faith, when they were being taught otherwise and even sold tickets as it were unto salvation. The RCC had and has much that it requires, which the scriptures do not. If you must perform them to be a member of the church, and you must be a member of the church to be saved, then the church requires to much that is extra biblical for salvation.

QuoteIn summary, Protestants' claim to be the real church is not based on a spiritual inheritance but  on the idea that they interpret the Scriptures better than the RCC does.  I don't really have a problem with that idea - but Protestant interpretation of Scripture is not better because it ignores significant parts of Scripture (e.g., James as the epistle of straw).   Yet at the same time, they claim their unique beliefs are based only on Scripture.  The truth is their doctrine is based on their reformation theology, which is not historical, and not as appealing as saying it is based on Scripture.

There is no such thing as spiritual inheritance. The Jews thought they had this also, but they were mistaken. The church is, has been, and always will consist of those who believe and submit to the word of God. You are correct that many Protestants themselves ignore a great deal of scripture. The reformation was and is progressive, many refuse to continue forward and get left behind. This causes the problem of an ever increasing number of  denominations. Theses not to mention the many that are just wrong to begin with. That is the price of freedom though, in this world. It is better than the alternative which is forced religion, which can only end in persecution.

QuoteI wondering if we are the only ones reading this dialogue?

Could be.

Amo,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. 

There is no such thing as group salvation - but there is a type of spiritual inheritance.  The kind that Paul passed onto Timothy:

For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

Notice that Timothy isn't teaching some new revelation but the same thing that Paul taught.  It continues from there.
But the faith (called the orthodox faith in the early church) is "given once for all" (Jude 3).

The state doesn't have to do with salvation, yet Paul says . . .

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

So, if the authorities are also of God, what would an ancient think about the Emperor calling a council?  Emperors, says Paul, are appointed by God too.  Now, this doesn't mean that they save people; their role is different.  Render to Caesar indeed. 

You and most Protestants don't want to submit to the authority - really any authority - and just read the Bible and decide for yourself what God is saying, but the Scriptures say "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation." It's not the way of the church.  The truth is found in the church (1 Tim 3:15).

Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli read the Bible in the way they wanted to, caught up in the individualism of their time and
while what they wrote is thoughtful, it is not the thought of the early church.

Culture gives context to what the Bible (or any document) is saying.  It's not that the culture is better, but we need to understand it to know what we are reading.  The west had already been through the Western thinking of Augustine and Acquinas.  They became too far removed from the culture of the church to understand it. 

The truth has always been the same and in the one church.  It never left as Jesus promised. 
   

QuoteAmo,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses. 

There is no such thing as group salvation - but there is a type of spiritual inheritance.  The kind that Paul passed onto Timothy:

For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

Notice that Timothy isn't teaching some new revelation but the same thing that Paul taught.  It continues from there.
But the faith (called the orthodox faith in the early church) is "given once for all" (Jude 3).

The state doesn't have to do with salvation, yet Paul says . . .

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

So, if the authorities are also of God, what would an ancient think about the Emperor calling a council?  Emperors, says Paul, are appointed by God too.  Now, this doesn't mean that they save people; their role is different.  Render to Caesar indeed. 

You and most Protestants don't want to submit to the authority - really any authority - and just read the Bible and decide for yourself what God is saying, but the Scriptures say "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation." It's not the way of the church.  The truth is found in the church (1 Tim 3:15).

Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli read the Bible in the way they wanted to, caught up in the individualism of their time and
while what they wrote is thoughtful, it is not the thought of the early church.

Culture gives context to what the Bible (or any document) is saying.  It's not that the culture is better, but we need to understand it to know what we are reading.  The west had already been through the Western thinking of Augustine and Acquinas.  They became too far removed from the culture of the church to understand it. 

The truth has always been the same and in the one church.  It never left as Jesus promised.

Why will you take Paul's words admonishing Christians to be good citizens of their respective nations, and turn it into the lie that Paul is saying that the civil authorities of the state should be running the church? Is it not because you refuse to accept the truth that church and state should be and remain separate? This too, that the church may control the state, for you and I both know that no church wants the state to control it.

Paul is simply stating that God uses the governments of this world to protect their citizens, and punish evil acts committed by them. This in no way shape or form means that these same governments should lead Christ's church, or that Paul was teaching this at all. To the contrary, it demonstrates that the state alone should be responsible for temporal punishment of the wicked. The church has no authority in such matters, beyond disfellowship of those who refuse her council concerning the same.

Will you state clearly here and now, that God used the governing bodies of Jesus day to rightly judge, condemn, and execute Jesus and all of the apostles?  Do you not understand that the very government Paul was speaking of in the verses you shared, is the one did these things. Yet here you are trying to tell us that the state is a rightful leader of Christ's church. You know this to be a lie, and would be personally offended if your local government officials came into your church and began telling everyone what to do and how to do it. No, but you speak of the church controlling the state, not the state controlling the church.

Apart from this, the scriptures make it clear that Christians must obey God rather than man, when earthly government and the church are at odds.

Acts 5:26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

We see in the above scriptures, that the apostles disobeyed the church and the state in obeying God, for the Priests and there officers represented both to the nation of Israel. The early Christians did disobey both the church, and the state of not only Israel, but Rome itself when fulfilling their mission to preach the gospel of the kingdom throughout this world. They also suffered persecution and death at the hands of both for the same. According to your own understanding, they should have shut their mouths and forsaken their Lord, as Israel and Rome commanded them. To the contrary though, God has not given the state any control of His church, and He has not given the church any control of the state. All those who presume these powers upon themselves will answer directly to Him for doing so.

The words of the apostle Paul which you shared, absolutely do not give a pagan emperor the right to call or preside over a council of the church of Christ.  This they may assuredly do though, over apostate "Christianity" since she herself is of this world and fully desires to be a citizen of it. Let her therefore commit fornication with the kings of this earth and unite with all of fallen humanity to the ruin of the same.


Man's earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and nations, in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the undivided city of God.

His was certainly a social teaching of great importance: he underlined the indispensable importance of the Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice, in the ideal and historical perspective of a civilization animated by love. Paul VI clearly understood that the social question had become worldwide  and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity.

56. The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church's social doctrine came into being in order to claim "citizenship status" for the Christian religion.











   

There is no universal city of God in and of this world for it is heavenly. The Holy Spirit was given so that we may have citizenship with God in His heavenly city. We must never look to men who are ordered of this world to rule the church or visa versa .

Amo,

Thanks again for your response. 

Quote
Why will you take Paul's words admonishing Christians to be good citizens of their respective nations, and turn it into the lie that Paul is saying that the civil authorities of the state should be running the church?

Please don't put words in my month.   The idea of separation of church and state was not the way of ancient (or modern) Israel, was it?  It's a modern notion which has value, but realize in many nations, the people themselves wanted church to be involved in state matters to keep the government honest.   While I prefer our representative democracy in a secular state, I can see why those people felt the way they did.  Whose to say the representative democratic approach would work in all the nations in the past?  But, let's fact it;  our model has its problems.  The lack of religion in public life because we have no state religion causes the emphasis on religion itself to be lessened leading to secular not religious society.   We are seeing this now.

The Bible gives ideas for state rule, but no specifics, certainly not a secular state with freedom of religion. Instead, we get see the admonition to obey the government and its leaders, yet we have Peter, for example, breaking the law to spread the gospel.   Note that Paul doesn't simply say obey the government.  He goes further.  He says that those officials are appointed by God and therefore deserve obedience.   Yes, the authorities were wrong to crucify Jesus, yet Paul's words still stands. 

Church and government are both organizations that are ordained of God. The Bible is clear on this (although many Protestants seem to deny the church is an organization).  Jesus confirms this by saying render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. I think the reason the Bible isn't more specific is it leaves open different models of government, as we've had over history. There is, how do Protestants say it, freedom in non-specifics?

I am not saying the civil authorities should run the church, but the Bible doesn't prohibit this.  I went further in saying that I am pleased that Prince Vladimir held a mass baptism of Keivan 'Rus.   Is this ideal?  Maybe not, but the people were clearly willing to accept his leadership and that country went from pagan to Christian.    I think the more correct example is in Constantine's time when the ruler has a separate authority from the church.  He saw the controversy and suggested that a council of church people decide it--not him.    Here we have different people (ruler and church leaders) playing different roles which is, I think, that spirit of "Render on Caesar."  The fruits of this were many.  We got a whole bunch of clarification on controversies that we no longer have to think about today.

What do I have against Protestantism?  Good question.  First, though,  I've learned a lot from them and
many are good Christians, but that doesn't make them correct.   1) sola scriptura -  The idea that Jesus
entrusted his followers to a book not flesh and blood people is simply not scriptural.  2) Scriptures as a replacement of the church -  it's an  absurd thought and one that leads to much division and no resolution on disagreement. 
3) Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli did not understand eastern culture -  It's a group thing and their focus
(and yours) is solely on the individual - not the society.   Why is this important?  4) Protestant leaders
don't understand the early church --for reason number three  5) Protestants had to justify that they replaced the RCC as the "new church" because their doctrine is more correct is not provable.  Yes, the RCC did some bad things - but that doesn't make Protestant doctrine more correct.   Put a neutral person to judge who interprets Scripture better - the Catholic or the Protestant--you won't get a clear winner. 6) sola fide and pat answers about salvation.  Sure, the Scripture talks about faith without works, but it also talks about obeying the commandments and doing good works (Matt 25).   Any neutral reading of scripture would show that
salvation is not spelled out as an easy formula - but that doesn't bother certain Protestants. 

In summary, Protestants' claim to be the real church is not based on a spiritual inheritance but  on the idea that they interpret the Scriptures better than the RCC does.  I don't really have a problem with that idea - but Protestant interpretation of Scripture is not better because it ignores significant parts of Scripture (e.g., James as the epistle of straw).   Yet at the same time, they claim their unique beliefs are based only on Scripture.  The truth is their doctrine is based on their reformation theology, which is not historical, and not as appealing as saying it is based on Scripture. 


Jesus entrusted believers to the Word of God and other Believers.  Your claim is false. I've NEVER seen a protestant claim that WE the church do not teach one another or make disciples.  "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel"...  and we do that.  Just as Paul and all of the Apostles teach those whom they led to Christ, we do also.  But, we do NOT need that second book of rules, religion and dogma to be saved or teach.  We never did, or Jesus would have said so.

Calvin?  Luther?  ... I have not to do with them.  Someone shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with me and I repented of my sins, and received Him as Lord and Savior.  No church, dogma or man's interpretation led me to Christ.  Are you saying I am not a member of The Church, a saved Christian, awaiting the return of my Lord and Savior?  Aren't you the one saying your religion is the true church?  I believe that it's the "Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" who are the church. How is that wrong?  No one ever needed an established religion on earth to be saved.  Jesus said... walk by "Faith" not by sight. The faithful do that. Regardless of where they attend a service.

Protestants don't understand the early church?  We have the word and the testimony of the Apostle's and Saint's... what is not to understand.  We can read easily the testimony of their salvations, their relationships with Jesus Christ, and even one another. We can see and understand their persecution and even deaths for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What is not to understand? Such a claim is ignorant. You have no proof that any protestant does not understand the early church. Only your accusation. Which is nothing compared to the truth of the Word of God concerning us. You cannot see the hearts and minds of men.

Yes, the Catholic Church did bad things. No that does not make protestants correct.  It confirms that the Word of God is complete and correct.  The word of God condemns or vindicates you. We. Me. All of us, including churches and doctrines.  So, yes the Catholic Church did bad.  Enough said, it has nothing to do with Protestantism.  You need to clean the doo off your own doorstep.

Salvation is not spelled out as a simple formula in the Word of God?  Did you really say that?  Jesus was born to be the Savior of the world... He lived, went to the cross, died, shedding His blood for the sins of the world, He defeated death, hell and the grave, rose from the dead, ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.  What is NOT simple about that?

Jesus commanded that we go into all the world and preach the simple gospel message for the salvation of man.... He made it clear and simple. Man complicates it.  They do not believe by faith that by the drawing of the Holy Spirit, one can believe that He died to save them and be redeemed.  It is very simple.  It is so simple that Jesus Himself said it... "simply Believe".  (Mark 5:36).. But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid any longer, only believe."

Is Jesus a liar?

The "real" church?  I am saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone...  How am I not the real church?  I heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, and I believed. I repented of my sins, and received Jesus as Lord.  How am I not the real church.  I was lost and blind, and now I see.  How am I not the real church?  My sins were as scarlet and now white as snow, How am I not the real church? 

I suspect that no matter how much you say that the Catholic Church is the true church, that the real Church is built of people who the Holy Spirit drew to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they received it, repented of their sins, and walk in the light of the Word, not by sight by faith.  And that when Heaven comes, we will find a whole lot of people we all may have thought was not the real church. 
As to the Word of God and who interprets it...  We all do.  We all can find today a readable, understandable version of the Word of God. It's a blessing, God is using to call as many as will in these days to believe and be saved. No one man or religion has the ONLY version or interpretation at all.  God did that. God made it available to us all when he provided men who would study the original text, and interpret it into languages for the world and we learned to read. It's the Spirit that leads us to that, drawing us to receive it, and to seek it.  The gospel was never complicated or unreachable by man.  Man made it confusing.  God is clearing it up.

The things you hold against Protestantism isn't even doctrines, you hold against them the audacity to walk by faith, not sight.  They read the word and believe. They seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit and receive it.  They go to the mercy seat and receive forgiveness and you don't understand that... because you can't do it.  You NEED the things the CC provides you to believe.  We only have the blood covering of Jesus Christ and the healing He provides, you resent that in us, because you need the crutches of your religion to walk. 

You really should forgive us for believing.  It's only right.  Jesus calls you to that. Peace. 

kensington,

Boy, what did I say?

Let me quote me:

Quote
What do I have against Protestantism?  Good question.  First, though,  I've learned a lot from them and
many are good Christians, but that doesn't make them correct.

I was saying why Protestantism is not the best understanding of the faith.  I like Protestants.  Heck, I used to
be one.  I say a little Jesus is better than none.  (Amo apparently doesn't agree , as he discounted
the baptism of the Kievan 'Rus into  the river.)   I don't say you are not a Christian; I would not say that.
In fact, there are great people outside my church (Orthodox, not RCC).    But what do we argue about here:
Who is more right?

Amo asked a question.  What do I have against Protestantism?  I didn't say they aren't Christian.  I think RCC
are Christians too.  But there are differences, and as is the nature of truth, there can be only one right answer.

I didn't want to give a flippant answer.  I spelled out six reasons. 

Quote
Someone shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with me and I repented of my sins, and received Him as Lord and Savior.  No church, dogma or man's interpretation led me to Christ.

I'm glad someone shared their faith with you.  I don't discount that-- but there is doctrine behind these words and, frankly, it didn't come from the Bible.   Where in the Bible does it say we need to receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior?
That language reflects a theological view--and a recent one at that.

Quote
Salvation is not spelled out as a simple formula in the Word of God?  Did you really say that?

Let me illustrate:

Quote
Jesus says in Matthew 19:16 ff

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good?[f] No one is good but One, that is, God.[g] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

18 He said to Him, "Which ones?"

Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19 'Honor your father and your mother,'[h] and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "

What can be simpler than this?  The question is direct and answered by Jesus himself, yet I doubt you think
this is the true answer to the man's question.

Salvation--A one-time confession.  What does Paul say about this:

Philippians  2:12

Quote
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

That's no one-time act but a process.

Protestant thinkers want to get the issue of salvation over with (eg sinner's prayer) and move on yet the New Testament itself is more more nuanced.

Quote
  Jesus was born to be the Savior of the world... He lived, went to the cross, died, shedding His blood for the sins of the world, He defeated death, hell and the grave, rose from the dead, ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.  What is NOT simple about that?

You are right in all of this.  But none of this is simple.  There are cultures who don't come close to getting this.  This is why we have missionaries.

Quote
Protestants don't understand the early church?  We have the word and the testimony of the Apostle's and Saint's... what is not to understand.

Oh lots, else you wouldn't have thousands of denominations.  And, yes, I explained why Calvin Luther and Zwingli didn't have the mind of the early church.  They were far removed in culture.  In my years as a Protestant, we never looked at church history--and most Protestants I know never studied it either.

Quote
I believe that it's the "Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" who are the church. How is that wrong? 

The church is not people ungathered believing more or less the same thing.  It is a gathering of people--by definition.  and it is also the place we go to find truth (1 Tim 3:15).   Belief is good, don't get me wrong, but it's not the church.

Quote
I suspect that no matter how much you say that the Catholic Church is the true church, that the real Church is built of people who the Holy Spirit drew to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they received it, repented of their sins, and walk in the light of the Word, not by sight by faith.

Again, here you have a bunch of ungathered people believing the same thing.  That's not what church is. 

Quote
As to the Word of God and who interprets it...  We all do

Actually, this is an important role of the church.  Private interpretation, as I said in the above posts, is not looked upon positively in the Scripture (2 Peter 1:20).   The church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (I Tim 3:15).  My church has been around 2000 years; they've figured it out.  They even define things we have freedom to disagree on but not be in disfellowship. 

Quote
The things you hold against Protestantism isn't even doctrines,

Sole fide (faith alone--point number 6 in my list) is a doctrine, the idea that the Bible is the only authority is a doctrine (even though the Bible says otherwise.)  The writings of Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli are mostly doctrine (and mostly wrong). 

Quote
you hold against them the audacity to walk by faith, not sight.

I do?  I admire many other Christians (and even non-Christians) in the walk--doesn't mean they are right.

Quote
No one man or religion has the ONLY version or interpretation at all.

I know Protestants believe this (and I once did) but it doesn't make sense.  There are 1000s of denominations
yet not one of them has the truth?  That doesn't seem likely from a God that is NOT the author of confusion.
There can be only one church with the truth, because Jesus is the the head of that church and Jesus is not divided.

Quote
We only have the blood covering of Jesus Christ and the healing He provides, you resent that in us, because you need the crutches of your religion to walk. 

Really, you are not reading my mind.  As for my religion,  it's the pearl of great price.  I can find the truth there among other things.  Yet you are saying that *no* church has the truth, so why is your church better than mine? 

Quote
Yes, the Catholic Church did bad things. No that does not make protestants correct.  It confirms that the Word of God is complete and correct.

There is no antecedent to "it" here so I don't quite get what you are saying.  (I make plenty of mistakes
when I write.)

Quote
The word of God condemns or vindicates you. We. Me. All of us, including churches and doctrines.

Well, it condemns me a sinner but not lost.   I'll agree it condemns churches, but one church has to be right.  Jesus and the NT says so.   It condemns false doctrine (as Paul says) but not true one.

Quote
So, yes the Catholic Church did bad.  Enough said, it has nothing to do with Protestantism.  You need to clean the doo off your own doorstep.

You are not clear on what my doo is, but yes, God is not done with me yet. 

I was speaking to the "doo" of the Catholic Church you defend. 

I never said anything about believers not gathering... not once.  You assumed something I did not imply. 

Salvation is a one time act...  "only believe" or Jesus is a liar. 

The Christian walk after salvation is a process. 

Jesus spoke to the "churches"...  Paul taught the "churches"... they are branches of the tree.  Salvation is offered to all.  Not all are going to be Catholic, they are and will still be The Church.  You delude yourself if you think that is not true.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life...  We are all in Him by the way of Salvation through His blood and the repentance of sin. 
We believers are all the church. 

I would like to know why Catholics are afraid of the Word of God.  Why do you brace up and become so offensive when someone defends the word as the standard that God gave us to learn, and walk with Him.  Why is that such a deal breaker for Catholics?  For Catholics, someone who believes the Bible and walks with God with it as their guide, seems to be a threat to them.  It's like they grab a crucifix and hold it up... "No No No" ... "No Scripture!".

God spoke it, and sent it to us.  We can read it and understand it.  The Catholic Bible is not different concerning Salvation and Jesus Christ.  Why do you guys break out the garlic? 

kensington,

Quote
I was speaking to the "doo" of the Catholic Church you defend.

I am not RCC, but I guess I am defending them.  Their theology is better than yours, basically, because they use all of Scripture while Protestants pick and choose their favorite scriptures and run with it.  Note my discussion of salvation.  Papal infallibility, indulgences, universal authority--I'm not down with that.  I am an Orthodox Christian, more popular in Greece and Russia but not small--about the size in number of Protestants.

Quote
I never said anything about believers not gathering... not once.  You assumed something I did not imply. 

You defined the church as those who believe the same thing:

Quote
I believe that it's the "Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" who are the church

While this is a Protestant line, it does not meet the definition of church - a gathering of believers.  So, yes, you did imply the church is believers not gathering.

You illustrate the Protestant problem here:

Quote
Salvation is a one time act...  "only believe" or Jesus is a liar. 

Yes, Jesus says to believe but Paul says we have to "work out our own salvation."  That sounds like a process to me.  Is Paul is a liar?  Is only believing a one time thing and then you move on?  No, so Jesus is not saying that you check the believing box and move on.  Do we have examples in the NT of people who stopped believing?  Yes.  Where they still in the faith?  No.

Quote
The Christian walk after salvation is a process.

We in the east don't look at it that way.  The walk is part of the salvation process.  I don't think is that important but when you view the Bible is a whole rather than cherry-picking verses (one of my complaints about Protestantism) it makes more sense.    Evidence:  Where does "working out your own salvation" fit in the Protestant view of things?  I used to be one.  Ask your minister or pastor. When I was a Protestant, I never got a good answer.  They twisted the Scripture to agree with their theology.

Quote
Jesus spoke to the "churches"...  Paul taught the "churches"... they are branches of the tree.

Actually, Jesus established the church.  Paul taught churches in the sense that the same church has branches, like a franchise.    The church can not be divided, since it's head Jesus Christ is not divided.

Quote
Salvation is offered to all.

I'm with you here, although our Calvinist friends would disagree.

Quote
Not all are going to be Catholic, they are and will still be The Church.  You delude yourself if you think that is not true.

I am not saying that those not in the RCC aren't saved (heck, that would leave me out).  As I see it,  God can save anyone he wants, whether or not they are in the church.  When Jesus says "With God, all things are possible," it is an response to a question about salvation.  There can be only one church, because Jesus is not divided.

Quote
We believers are all the church. 

Here we go again.  The problem with this view is it isn't biblical.  The church is not only a gathering
but an entity that has leadership, people in roles, some judgment, and the place where you can
find the truth (I Tim 3:15).

No matter how many times you and the many posters here say that the church is the sum of
all believers (whether or not they gather) the Bible says otherwise.   As I said in reason six,
Protestants say all their beliefs are in the Bible, yet they deviate from it without apology.

The reason why Protestants are so insistent about their definition of the church are historical and
have nothing to do with Scripture.  But as I said earlier, it sounds better to base your faith
in the Bible rather than Protestant reformational thought.

Quote
I would like to know why Catholics are afraid of the Word of God.

It's a good question and you are probably right (if you are referring to Scripture).  I guess we fear that we will interpret it wrong.  We are more comfortable with leaving it up to the church to interpret it for us.  They are the experts.    But, I'll admit the average RCC and Orthodox does not read scripture as much as we should.

Quote
Why do you brace up and become so offensive when someone defends the word as the standard that God gave us to learn, and walk with Him.  Why is that such a deal breaker for Catholics?

It is because it leaves the church out of the equation.  Furthermore, it's not really Biblical.  Does Jesus promise a New Testament(NT)?  No, he promises a church.   Don't get me wrong, interpreting the Scripture is important, but for the first 400 years there was no New Testament, yet the Church did pretty well.  Furthermore, let's face it, the NT is not manual for believers. It is open to interpretation and that's the church's job, not left to you and me to interpret as we want.

Quote
It's like they grab a crucifix and hold it up... "No No No" ... "No Scripture!".

I wouldn't go that far! 

Quote
The Catholic Bible is not different concerning Salvation and Jesus Christ.

True, but we interpret it better than you do for reasons that i say above.  We look at it as whole, while you pick-and-choose verses to fit your theology. (More evidence: Luther bases his theology of one book:Romans (which he interpreted incorrectly BTW) and is content with "ripping out the Epistle of James out of my Bible).

  As I said if my original post, take a neutral person and present the Protestant and Catholic view of the Bible, it is not clear that they would choose the Protestant view.  I think they are more likely to choose the RCC .  (Of course, the Orthodox view blow them both away )

Quote
Why do you guys break out the garlic? 

Because many RCC are Italian, of course, we use garlic in cooking    But seriously, let me take a stab. The real world involves not only ideas but matter (not to mention spirit).   Protestants are content with ideas (it has something to do with Acquinas, scholasticism, and the Enlightenment) but we are more about integrating the faith with the world, while you are more into separating them on two planes.  While you all are about praying away the devil,  we are into the physical confrontation (not that it is wrong to pray).  Note that when Jesus healed people, they was usually a physical aspect to it (washing, rubbing mud on eyes, touch).

I really resent being included in the "You" that you accuse all Protestants to me.  The Book of James is my favorite book. I love it for doctrine and learning to walk uprightly in the Lord. 

I've never met a Protestant who doesn't actually embrace the whole of the Word of God.  I know I do.  It's perfect for teaching and perfecting the body of Christ, The Church. 

What do you mean... "Praying away the Devil"?   Satan has no authority here...  no need to speak to him whatsoever.  I pray to the LORD according to the word and speaking Psalms and Proverbs.  Pray the word...  What has Satan to do with that.  I believe in loosing and binding according to the word.  But, I do not spend my days and nights in prayer against Satan. I don't need to do that. I am a child of the Living God.  I believe in the physical working of the word in our lives and physically acting on it.

I told you before.. I have NOT to do with Luther or Calvin or anyone else.  I have studied the whole word for my entire walk both daily and seated with Scholars who read, teach and interpret the Original.  I don't know who you speak of who rip the Book of James out of your Bible.

I read the word daily.  I teach it. All of it to those I am called to teach.  I don't need church leaders to interpret it for me.  I have sat in many a teaching by the men of God that I could have taught myself.  I can finish their sentences and they often go way to slow for me.  Most keep their messages on a beginners level and I am no beginner.  It's nothing to fear.  Paul and Jesus both said so.  Especially Paul.  Read it, embrace it, study it, walk it, live it, give it.  It's really not as hard or fearful as man makes it.  Why would Paul have written it to simple uncomplicated people in letters if they needed a counsel of men to interpret what he meant to them?? 

The closed, "counsel to interpret" only mentality, steals the biblical life from people who would be walking victoriously with Jesus if they were encouraged to "Study to show thyself approved, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 

I am not ashamed. 

Which is one reason I do resent that your conversation uses the term "you all" when discussing these things.  I am not "you all"... 

"We interpret it better than you do"...   Not by anything I have read that you have said.  You do not.  Those whom I have taught, are still taught.  Those whom I have led to the Lord are still saved.  Those whom I have prayed for laying on of hands, and God touched, are still touched.  He receives my worship, and loves me, He died to save me and I am still saved.  How do you interpret the word better?  Does your interpretation undo anything that He has done in my life?  Does your interpretation take away the Promises that He gave to me?  I think not. 

kensington,

Quote
I really resent being included in the "You" that you accuse all Protestants to me.

Sorry if you resent being called a Protestant.  I don't understand why since you were
were criticizing me for criticizing Protestantism.   

Quote
The Book of James is my favorite book. I love it for doctrine and learning to walk uprightly in the Lord. 

I like it too, but Martin Luther clearly did not.  He called it the Epistle of straw.

Quote
I don't know who you speak of who rip the Book of James out of your Bible.

That would be Martin Luther.

Quote
I've never met a Protestant who doesn't actually embrace the whole of the Word of God.

Protestants love the Bible, no doubt, but Protestants emphasize certain parts of the Bible, as do
Catholics and even Orthodox.    We may say we embrace the whole Word of God, but
we all emphasize certain parts.   I gave you an example in Jesus' answer to the rich young
man who wanted salvation. 

Quote
What do you mean... "Praying away the Devil"?   Satan has no authority here...  no need to speak to him whatsoever.

I didn't say pray to the devil, I would never accused you of that.   Protestants and all Christians pray to God to protect us from the devil.  "Deliver us from the evil one" is in the Lord's Prayer.  My point was
Protestants are content to stop there.  But Catholics (and Orthodox) go further-we exorcise.  There is a physical component to it.   It was just an illustrative point. Protestantism is more about the head than the physical nature.

Quote
I have studied the whole word for my entire walk both daily and seated with Scholars who read, teach and interpret the Original.

That is good, but scholars disagree.  Some are better than others.   Furthermore, we can categorize them.  Calvinist scholars, for example, believe in predestination, but we agree that Jesus came to all people, not a select bunch.   Your scholars are going to give you context to read scripture.

Quote
I have NOT to do with Luther or Calvin or anyone else. 

Yes--you do.   Scripture is made to be put in a context; otherwise, it would read like a manual.  Luther and Calvin provide the context for the scholars that you listen to who give you context  for your Bible. 

Remember the Ethiopian eunuch: "So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

Then there is even Peter who admits the parts of Paul's epistles "are hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16).

This is why we look to the church to guide us when reading scripture, because the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Quote
Why would Paul have written it to simple uncomplicated people in letters if they needed a counsel of men to interpret what he meant to them?? 

But we have to interpret letters written to someone else.

Quote
Which is one reason I do resent that your conversation uses the term "you all" when discussing these things.  I am not "you all"...

We have to belong to some belief group.  We are not islands.  Admittedly, it is hard to peg down what a Protestant believes but I assume you are evangelical and Protestant.  I don't know why you resent being part of a group. 

Quote
"We interpret it better than you do"...   Not by anything I have read that you have said.  You do not

Actually, we do.  I am not here to discuss why, but I've given you some examples.  It not because of me,
it's because my church has been there from the beginning.  Four churches are, none are Protestant.  Why? None existed until 1500.  How could they know the mind of the early church?   

Quote
Does your interpretation undo anything that He has done in my life?  Does your interpretation take away the Promises that He gave to me?  I think not. 

If it works for you, that is fine.  God is working!  But you're not content to stop there, you feel obligated to criticize RCC for their beliefs.  Now, you are entering a different realm.  Be ready to answer criticism, define the group you are in, and don't get offended too easily.

I do not resent being part of a group... I resent being falsely accused as you accuse them. 

Some of the things  you say allow me to know that you really do not know or are not able to pin point what Protestants know or believe.

We most certainly do cast out demons.  If that is what you meant.   I never said we prayed to Satan...  WHY do you do that?   You exercise you say... Who?  A Priest ... Or you by the Authority given you by Jesus Christ according to the authority given to Him by the Father?

kensington,

Quote
I do not resent being part of a group... I resent being falsely accused as you accuse them.

This is not clear.
Is it my criticism of Protestantism that you "resent?"  I explained why I disagree and gave evidence.

Quote
Some of the things  you say allow me to know that you really do not know or are not able to pin point what Protestants know or believe

Interesting.  You have a point in that I do get different answers from Protestants about what they believe.  But I do know what Calvin and Luther basically believe.  I understand modern evangelical thought, since I used to be one.  I know what Arminianism is.  I've have friends in different Protestant churches, 

Let's see -  you say you are know not Calvin and Luther and don't know what Luther said about James' letter nor will you even say you are a Protestant.   Yet you doubt my understanding of Protestantism.

Quote
I never said we prayed to Satan...  WHY do you do that? 

Look at the conversation again and you will see I never said that.  You asked if I meant that which I clearly explained that I didn't.

Quoting me here from the last thread (even if I had a tense-shift mistake):

Quote
I didn't say pray to the devil, I would never accused you of that.

Please read my posts more carefully.

QuotePlease don't put words in my month.   The idea of separation of church and state was not the way of ancient (or modern) Israel, was it?  It's a modern notion which has value, but realize in many nations, the people themselves wanted church to be involved in state matters to keep the government honest.   While I prefer our representative democracy in a secular state, I can see why those people felt the way they did.  Whose to say the representative democratic approach would work in all the nations in the past?  But, let's fact it;  our model has its problems.  The lack of religion in public life because we have no state religion causes the emphasis on religion itself to be lessened leading to secular not religious society.   We are seeing this now.

I have no intention of putting words in your mouth. I apologize if you think I am.

Separation of church and state is not a modern notion, it is a new covenant reality established by Jesus Christ Himself. The Son of God came to change many things, and those who were not ready to accept those changes thought it expedient, that one man should die rather than their entire system be undone. Nevertheless, they could do nothing to stop the changes established in Christ, and their plot to overthrow that which Christ came to establish only fulfilled the same as the scriptures had already predicted. The church of Christ was established in contrast to all the nations and kingdoms of this earth, past, present, and future. It was and is the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, above and apart from all earthly kingdoms, empires, powers, and or authorities. All those who have, do, or will try to pull God's kingdom down to this earth by making it a literal kingdom of the same, will face the judgment of God for doing so.

Jn 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Jn 18:31.  Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: 32 That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. 33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 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. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [/b][/u][/color]

Why do you resist the truth, and continue to defend as right that which is wrong? Why will you seek to reestablish that of the old covenant, which Christ came to change? Why will you make the kingdom of God the kingdom of men? Why will you take the authority, power, and Spirit of Christ and place it in the hands humanity as though it were subject to the same? Do you not understand that this is anti-christ?

Lk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

The gospel is to be preached among all nations, with power from above, not from here below. It is a call for people to become part of the kingdom of God, above and beyond all earthly kingdoms, not a call to take over nations and force citizens into the kingdom of God. This is not possible. No one is, or will ever be a citizen of the kingdom of God through state established religion. All who attempt to make it so, and make the kingdom of God the kingdom of men, are defying the living example and teaching of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They will be found to be, none of His.

Mt 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Christ Himself shall separate His own from all nations when He returns. No nation can do this for Him, nor were they ever authorized by Him to do so, nor will they go unpunished for presuming this authority upon themselves. All religious persecution which there has ever been, or ever will be, has been perpetrated by people who believed they had the right to dictate to others what they will believe. Nations which unite church and state are the epitome of all such notions. No one will ever be a Christian because they were born of this or that nation of this earth, or became a citizen of one. All true Christians must be born again, of the Spirit, not ever anything of the flesh or of this world.

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The gospel is to be preached to all nations for a witness, the commission is from God to be carried out by the power of His Holy Spirit, it is not to be hijacked by any nation for any reason. No reason of which could be justifiable, or in accordance with God's will or design.

Mt 28:8 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Again, this commission and the power attending it, is given to the church, not any state. As soon as any state takes over this commission, a precipitate shift of power takes place also. The Holy Spirit moves out, and the power of state moves in. Is this power of state to the effect of freedom and liberty for their people? No, it is not, it is rather to the detriment of the most basic right and freedom of any and every individual. The right to choose for one's self, what to believe, and why to believe it. If God Himself did not believe in this right, none of us would have it, nor would our situation even exist. All therefore who presume to remove this right, place themselves above God in doing so. There father is not God, or else they would allow for that which God Himself allows for. There father is the one from below, who himself first desired to be God, by presuming prerogatives which belong to God alone.

QuoteThe Bible gives ideas for state rule, but no specifics, certainly not a secular state with freedom of religion. Instead, we get see the admonition to obey the government and its leaders, yet we have Peter, for example, breaking the law to spread the gospel.   Note that Paul doesn't simply say obey the government.  He goes further.  He says that those officials are appointed by God and therefore deserve obedience.   Yes, the authorities were wrong to crucify Jesus, yet Paul's words still stands.

The bible gives great detail concerning state rule in the theocracy of the old covenant which God established. We do not live during the old covenant though, and the new covenant absolutely and resoundingly does call for a state which is neutral about religion and allows freedom of the same. The existence of the Christian church, and the fidelity of Christians themselves to the commission given them of God, screamed loud and clear of freedom from government interference with the Christian faith. Both its establishment and promulgation were declared illegal by the governing powers of the day. Yet the church, knowing that the governments of this world have no say in the affairs of Christ's church on earth defied all of the same. What greater testimony can be given, to the effect that the governments of this world have no say in the church of Christ?

You yourself acknowledge this disobedience to the state by Christians as right, yet you refuse to follow the implications of such to their logical conclusion. You cannot have it both ways my friend, but in your own head. If Paul's words meant what you say they mean, there should be no Christian church, nor should Paul himself have continued in his faith and died for the same. He and all other Christians should have submitted the things that be of God to the state, if the state is to be obeyed as chosen by God Himself to this end. We both know though, that Paul did not mean what you suggest. He did not admonish all to submit to the state in spiritual matters, while he himself exemplified the exact opposite. He believed as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did as well. That he belonged to a kingdom which is not of this world in and through Jesus Christ our Lord, and therefore ignored the baseless authority of a government of this world trying to usurp God's authority over His own.

QuoteChurch and government are both organizations that are ordained of God. The Bible is clear on this (although many Protestants seem to deny the church is an organization).  Jesus confirms this by saying render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. I think the reason the Bible isn't more specific is it leaves open different models of government, as we've had over history. There is, how do Protestants say it, freedom in non-specifics?

They are only ordained of God when they properly perform His will. Will you dare to say that the countless tyrannical and abusive religions and governments of this world were ordained of God to be so? Governments are ordained by God to punish the wicked and protect their citizens from the same. That is all. They are not ordained in any way shape or form to lead or direct the church of Christ in this new covenant era.

It is no surprise that you chop in half one sentence spoken by Jesus to support your argument. The truth must apparently be chopped and mutilated to maintain it. The full sentence conveys the exact opposite message of that you have promoted above. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Render to each that which is their's, because what belongs to one, does not belong to the other.

If your going to use these words of Christ to support your views, please do at least address an entire sentence, and not half of one construed to your own argument, which is only logical if or while ignoring the rest of the sentence.

QuoteI am not saying the civil authorities should run the church, but the Bible doesn't prohibit this.  I went further in saying that I am pleased that Prince Vladimir held a mass baptism of Keivan 'Rus.   Is this ideal?  Maybe not, but the people were clearly willing to accept his leadership and that country went from pagan to Christian.    I think the more correct example is in Constantine's time when the ruler has a separate authority from the church.  He saw the controversy and suggested that a council of church people decide it--not him.    Here we have different people (ruler and church leaders) playing different roles which is, I think, that spirit of "Render on Caesar."  The fruits of this were many.  We got a whole bunch of clarification on controversies that we no longer have to think about today.

The world is filled with wickedness and sin which the bible does not specifically prohibit. The NT and NC absolutely do forbid that civil authorities should establish and or run the church of Christ. The words and living example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the words and living example of His apostles, and the words and lives of all the early Christians testify to this.

Not one soul was saved by that or any state compelled mass baptism. Not one person of that baptism was a Christian afterwards because of it. Nor was the state made Christian, or can any state be made Christian by any such act. No one can become one of God's own through the state, as the nation of Israel so clearly demonstrated throughout the entire old covenant. Do you think your prince or any other save our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, can do any better with such than God Himself did with Israel? It cannot be done, which is why christ came to establish a different kind of kingdom, which can and will stand forever. State religions simply cannot produce such.

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.

Jesus did not come to establish a literal kingdom of this world. That was old covenant practice which was meant to pass away and be replaced with that which is spiritual and therefore eternal. It never worked then, and it never will now. What arrogance makes the kings of this earth think they can make something work, which didn't work when God Himself established it, and which He always meant to replace? Those only who are born again can be part of the kingdom of God which Christ came to establish. No one born of this or that nation can ever attain heaven through them, nor are any of the governments of this world to usurp the authority of God over His church through His Son Jesus Christ by way of the Holy Spirit of God. Thinking one is a Christian because they belong to a "Christina nation" can only produce a false sense of security, endangering the soul. This is not to mention the other serious side effects of the same, which have been demonstrated all throughout the history of state established religion.