The Eastern Church

[Guest]

Greetings to the fellow from the church of the East - [Hag Somay'ach!],
Possibly I failed to phrase the question clearly in the first message - I've sifted the information that you had posted, yet am not certain that I hear a straight answer. Within the context of the early church writings (through the 3rd century/pre-nicea) I am not aware of any teaching/commentary that permits the use of violence - whether it be within the context of national or personal defence. To the contrary, there are a fair number of statements plainly instructing/informing us about a strictly non-violent tradition being upheld - both with regard to the defence of state and person. I would gladly be willing to cite examples upon request.
Though I'm not interested in entering into debate about the subject - I see no justification for an asserted apostolic succession that manifestly contradicts the teaching of the New Testament as well as the subsequent following couple generations of the church as evidenced by history.

"And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion not to resist their persecutors."
- Origen: Against Celsus /ante-N Vol4, 467

"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."
- John 18:36

Shalom b'Shem Jesus Christ-
-SD

p.s. Thank you, Steve Gregg, for the acknowledgement - I'm grateful to have access to your sober treatment of such a variety of biblical questions.

[Guest]

Al'Maseeh Qam!! Greetings!

The Teachings of Messiah forbid the making disciples among the Nation by the Power of the Sword. No Jihadist Christians. Nor do the Scriptures permit collaborative servitude with the Beast (i.e. NO military, Police or Governmental Service with a Persecuting earthly Prince, Power or Potentate). Messiah also demanded a Just application of the Law, not a corrupted and unjust application (ie Do not Judge unless you too wish to receive the same Judgment. Judge correctly), yet Messiah was not an Anarchist. He never revoked the Moral Law or the divine right of the Government, Police, Courts or Military to carry the sword for Civil Order and Social Justice. Paul reaffirmed this and applied it to PAGAN ROME!!! So if Pagan Rome had the right to keep the peace and maintain Social Justice, how much more does the Democratic Nations?

Do not think that God's Modus Operendi or Justice has been changed. The right to uphold the Civil, Moral & Ethical Law, Social Justice and make a common defense is nowhere prohibited by Christ or His Apostles, nor does the New Covenant Revelation contradict or remove these basic human duties and rights. But our Faith cannot be imposed by the Sword or Defended by it either.....but is is our duty to defend our friends, neighbors, families, widows, orphans and the helpless from thievery, rape, slaughter and injustice....even if we must rise up as Joshua or lay down our Lives as Samson!

This view, held by a select few in the past...not the general position of the Church.....that the Gospel revokes basic human rights of self defense and common security of the nation is an unbiblical and heretical notion. That would make God mutable and His Will capricious and dependant upon situational ethics. It was OK for ex slave Israel to united for the Common Defense and execute Social Justice....but not for Israel under the Messiah's New Covenant...hmmm. Bad logic. Poor Theology.....Isogetics at it's worst. Paul must have been drinking bad juice when he expounded upon this issue in his Letter to the Roman Church. They had the same worries! I am sorry, Jesus Christ was not Mahatma Ghandi...nor was Paul a Martin Luther King Jr. Both Good Men used nonviolent protest to clog up and force a change of policy of unjust Government Policies. This is great in British India or the United States...but it doesn't work under the Beast, remember Tienimin Square? How about Nazi Germany? Soviet Union Ring a Bell? How about Cambodia, Burma, Sudan, Ethiopia or Rowanda? No Nation which is governed by Authoritarianist Dictatorships (The Beast) can be moved by such well meaning protestation, it results in slaughter.

I am not saying that Christians should not employ such means to change unjust laws or cultural sins. But this action is not taught in Scripture either. I don't recall any Pacifistic Nonviolent Protests to Roman Persecution of the Church by Christians...nope. We became Circus Meat and Lamp Poles. Don't recall any Christian writer speaking like Martin Luther King Jr. either......nope. Can you imagine Peter in the Center of Rome giving his "I have a dream!" speech? ROFL!!! I think out youthful questioner sees things in an unhistorical light, and reads into Apostolic Writings that which he needs for his own leanings.

I mean Jesus did not act like a Good Anabaptist when he kicked some rear ends in the Temple, and slapped them around a bit.....what Pacifist set of proof texts did He get this methodology? Seems like Messiah still acts like Jehovah of Old don't it? I mean, could it be that He is the same God? LOL! Messiah only forbad defense and spread of the Faith by the sword......not a general ban on self defense from criminal and national attack. If Messiah did introduce Pacifism, then He was not the Messiah foretold by the God of Israel through the Prophets. For this position contradicts The Torah, the Prophets and the Writings...and according to the Prophetic Rule this would expose him as a False Prophet and a Divine Test from God upon Israel to see if they where going to remain faithful to what God had already revealed to them.

But this is not the case.....Messiah upholds Law and Social Justice. He does not revoke Civil Authority's Right to tax, promote civil defense, uphold social justice and execute punishment upon the law breaker and those who would seek to destroy the social order. No Apostle ever taught a Pacifist Gospel......but they all Promoted the role of Saints as Good, participating and Law abiding Citizens of whatever kingdom they found themselves in. In this setting we are called to evangelize and make disciples...all the while as upstanding members of our societies in which we seek to live and offer redemption to. And if such a society is tolerant of our Faith, protects our God given rights and makes us full participating members of that society...it is not contrary to Scripture, Church Teaching or Holy Tradition to participate in the Government (Cornelius), to Vote (Let you yes be yes, or your No be No), to join Law Enforcement (Blessed are the Peace Keepers), to pay Taxes (Give to Caesar what is Caesars), become Attorneys & Judges, serve in the National Defense Forces (Centurian of Faith).

Messiah and His Apostles never said, " If you are a Soldier, Tax Gatherer, Judge, Mayor, Senator, Attorney, General, Clerk or Participant of Civil Government you must reject these things and Follow Me! For My Kingdom is not this Civil Government or Society!!!" On the contrary! He demanded that those who serve the Nation in these positions should do so Justly! Yet it seems to me you think reclusive pacifistic anabaptism oozes from the Bible, Church history and records.......but this is not so. This is a Liberal Anabaptist doctrine & hermanuetic arrived at after the failed Anabaptist Jihad of Munster & Mt. Tabor. After they got their heads handed to them by their Protestant and Catholic neighbors, Anabaptists figured God had a better way at Reformation of the Church: RUN WAY! Isolate yourselves in pure Communes and become quiet Pacifistic Amish, Mennonite and German Baptist farmers and tinkerers. It was not the Bible and Church tradition which transformed Anabaptists into reclusive self sufficient communal pacifists; it was their prior failed JIHAD to establish the Kingdom by force and their subsequent flight from unwilling Protestant & Catholic neighbors they once tried to evangelized and then tried to establish a Dictatorial Community Rule over.

Just like when the Muslims began their First JIHAD to convert or annihilate the Christian Kingdoms of Europe, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Georgia, the Balkans, Asia Minor and Greece...the Protestants & Catholics united (amazing huh?) to a common defense from Anabaptists who wished to destroy their way of life and to revoke their religious liberties. The Crusades where originally about a common defense of Religious Liberty and Freedoms of their Kingdoms against a False Prophet's Armies which sought to invade, convert or destroy them by the sword if necessary. You owe your very Bible and freedom to be a Pacifist Christian because All of Orthodox Judeo-Christianity upheld the right of Civil Defense and Punishment of the Wicked by the Sword. North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, Turkey, Albania, Kosovo and Azerbijan where all Christian Nations before the Islamic JIHAD Invasions which caused the Diaspora or Genocide of the Christian Populations therein. Then these lands where colonized and repopulated by Turkish, Moorish and Arabian Muslims.

It is true that the Crusades became bogged down by Coalition infighting (French vs British) and betrayals (Byzantines betrayed by the Venetians) inspired by Trade Monopolies and Roman Catholicism vs Eastern Orthodoxy. But this was true of the Allies in WW I & WW II against the Axis Powers. True, the Christian Kingdoms of the North Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Turkey, Azerbijan, Cyprus, Albania and Kosovo could not be restored and remain Islamic Nations to this Day.....but because of the Christian Civil Defense of their European & Asian Homelands the Muslim Invasion was halted and repelled from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the All the Russian Lands. And because of this the Eastern Orthodox Scholars had a place to run to and spawn Classical Education in the West and a learning of Biblical Greek lost since 500 A.D. You owe your present Liberties, English Bible and Faith to those who fought against Islamic Dominion and sought to retake the Eastern Christian Empire and Holy Lands from the Muslim Hordes.

Shalom Alekhim,
H. G. Mar +Kenat'el DM

PS you can see I do not have anything good to say about Mohammed and his Evil Violent Religion, which is a corrupt syncretism of Arabian Paganism, Judaism and Gnostic Christianity. There is no war on terror..as terror is a tactic. This is the Last Islamic Jihad in which will be determined whether or not the West will Fall to Islamic Dominion and Genocide.

[_Steve]

Hi Ken,
That was quite the tirade! It is evident that this Anabaptist/pacifist question touches a raw nerve with you (perhaps an emotional reaction to your Mennonite school experience?). It is also evident, from the content of your argument, that you have no biblical or patristic sources with which to refute the simple point made by SD, namely, that the early Christians were non-resistant in the context of persecution, warfare, and law enforcement—apparently up until the time of Ambrose and Augustine—which raises questions about the true apostolic character of a denomination, like yours, which does not follow the early apostolic view.

It also seems evident that you don't recognize the difference in the position of the apostolic fathers on the this topic from that of modern liberal pacifists. The latter wish to condemn all warfare. The former believed in two spheres of authority corresponding to two separate vocations: that of the secular state, with its duty to protect citizens, even by warfare, if necessary, and that of the Christian, who, as pilgrims and strangers bear the responsibility of praying for and evangelizing the nations in which they are domiciled, but not of participating in their armed defense.

This mentality changed sometime after Constantine, with the introduction of the new concept of a "Christian State," but the original view of the apostolic fathers was that the state has its functions and the church has its functions, and there was little overlapping in their respective vocations.

It seems to be a simple fact that every church father who wrote on the subject of war, prior to Ambrose, thought it inappropriate for Christians to participate in the military or in the state function of the execution of criminals. This was not (as you have suggested) simply a forbidding of "Christian Jihad," nor merely a concern not to collaborate with “a persecuting prince, power or potentate.” Nor was it merely an objection to the pagan rituals associated with military service, as many conscientious objectors to pacifism are fond of saying. The position of the ancient fathers was against any killing of human beings under any circumstances (I do not say that I agree with them, but it is not my opinion, but theirs, that we are discussing).

One can convince himself of this merely by reading what these people wrote on the subject. The earliest witnesses (besides Jesus and the apostles) that we have on this topic are Justin, Athenagoras and Tertullian, in the second century, and Lanctantius, Arnobius, Origen and Cyprian, in the third century.

Although I know that you are familiar with the patristic writings, Ken, I am sure that many of the readers at this forum are not, so I will excerpt some of their statements below. If I do not quote them in their entirety, it is in the interest of brevity, and not of obscuring their context. The reader is encouraged to read the statements in their original context, if there is any suspicion of my mishandling them.

Witness #1: Justin Martyr (110-165) put the early Christian position succinctly: “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war upon our enemies.” (“First Apology,” chap. 39)

Witness #2: Tertullian (155-240) addressed the question of Christians and military service more fully:

“But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted into the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Caesar…how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? …the Lord…in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.” (“On Idolatry” 19)

Tertullian again:
“…I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians…Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?…as to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more…I banish from us the military life…” (“The Chaplet” 6, 11, 12)

And one more from Tertullian:
“For what wars would we not be fit…if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?” (“Apology” 30-38)

Witness#3: Athenagoras, one of the early church apologists, wrote defending Christians against the false charge of cannibalism. Though not speaking directly about the subject of war, he did say that Christians “cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly…” —a sentiment consistent with that of other early fathers when speaking about warfare. (“A Plea For Christians,” 34-35)

Witness #4: Lactantius (250-330) the Christian teacher, who actually became tutor to Constantine’s son, wrote, in about 313:

“ Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself that is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather, it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature…When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is unlawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself.” (“Institutes,” book 6, chap.20)

Witness #5: Arnobius (3rd century apologist) wrote:

“We have learned from his teaching and his laws that evil should not be repaid with evil. That it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. And that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.” (“Against the Heathen,” book 1, sec.6)

Witness #6: Cyprian (200-258), bishop of Carthage, wrote:

“The whole world is wet with mutual blood. Murder, which is admitted to be a crime when it is committed by an individual, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds [of war], not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetuated on a grand scale.” (To Donatus, section 6)

Witness #7: Origen (185-254), the Alexandrian theologian, wrote:
“Nowhere does he teach that it is right for his own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked. For he deemed the killing of any individual to be against his laws, which were divine in origin. If Christians had owed their origins to rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. [These laws] do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep.” (“Against Celsus,” book 3, chap.7)

We may choose to disagree with the exegesis or the ethical conclusions of these ante-Nicene fathers about war or capital punishment, but in light of these statements from the first three centuries, we can at least conclude the following:

1) that your condescending comment about “our youthful questioner,” whom, you said, “sees things in an unhistorical light, and reads into Apostolic Writings that which he needs for his own leanings” was greatly mistaken. The questioner is simply taking the same position that the earliest church fathers advocated;

2) that Christian pacifism is not the product of modern liberalism, but was the most ancient viewpoint of the earliest Christians;

3) that the questioner’s original challenge was quite valid, namely, how can a denomination that takes a different position than did the apostolic fathers upon a major ethical question claim that it stands in the direct succession of the apostles?

With extremely inappropriate sarcasm, you chided the questioner, saying, “you think reclusive pacifistic anabaptism oozes from the Bible, Church history and records.” I don’t remember the questioner saying that he believed this, but if he did, it seems that he has both scripture and history on his side!

You give the example of Christ cleansing the temple as a proof that Jesus did not teach pacifism. I have always thought that the non-pacifists who feel compelled to support their position with this example ought to be embarrassed to reveal such desperation for biblical support of their position. There is no moral equivalence, in the mind of the pacifist or of any thinking person, between the act of driving cattle with a small whip and that of killing men for whom Christ died!

You claim that “no Apostle ever taught a Pacifist Gospel......but they all Promoted the role of Saints as Good, participating and Law abiding Citizens.” Again, I have never seen why a dichotomy should be thought to exist between these two possibilities. I am a good, law-abiding, participating citizen—but I do not kill people. How is this inconsistent? If the government asked me to kill someone, whom I did not know to be worthy of death, and I refused, how is this different from the early Christians refusing to burn incense to Caesar? Were they not good citizens?

Also, I don't know whether it would be called a "Pacifist Gospel," but the teachings of the early fathers certainly appear to be supported in the writings of the Apostle Paul, when he said "We [Christians] do not wrestle against flesh and blood..." (Eph.6:12) and "The weapons of our [Christians'] warfare are not carnal" (2 Cor.10:4). James 5:6. also seemed to attest to the non-resistant ethic of the first-century Christians. It appears to be the teaching of Jesus in Matt.5:44, Matt. 26:52, and John 18:36, and of John, in Revelation 12:11, as well.

You misrepresent, not only modern pacifists, but also the 16th-centyry Anabaptists, when you say, “This is a Liberal Anabaptist doctrine & hermeneutic arrived at after the failed Anabaptist Jihad of Munster & Mt. Tabor. ...It was not the Bible and Church tradition which transformed Anabaptists into reclusive self sufficient communal pacifists; it was their prior failed JIHAD.” You are, I think, quite mistaken. The Anabaptists were indeed influenced by the Bible and the early fathers in adopting their ethic of non-resistance. The earliest Anabaptist leaders, who broke off with Zwingli, were all martyred prior to the Munster incident in 1529. The Munster rebellion, as all fair-minded scholars know, was the action of a sect that in no way represented the beliefs of the mainstream Anabaptists. The Munsterites, under Hoffmann, happened to share with the Anabaptists a belief in adult baptism, but apart from that, their aims were mostly political. Their actions were condemned by most Anabaptists—not because the Jihad failed, but because the Anabaptists understood the Sermon on the Mount (which they followed more closely than did any other Christian communion) to forbid armed resistance. It would be as reasonable to condemn Anglican theology because of the rantings of Bishop Shelby Spong!

You make the assertion that “You owe your very Bible and freedom to be a Pacifist Christian because All of Orthodox Judeo-Christianity upheld the right of Civil Defense and Punishment of the Wicked by the Sword…You owe your present Liberties, English Bible and Faith to those who fought against Islamic Dominion and sought to retake the Eastern Christian Empire and Holy Lands from the Muslim Hordes.” This is a common, humanistic argument, which pacifists hear frequently from critics. It falls short of true Christian thinking on several counts:

1) It presumes to know what God might or might not have done to protect His people had they left their defense entirely in His hands. Jehoshaphat was in danger of being overrun by Arab hordes in his day, but in obedience to God, he did not fight. God supernaturally spared Jerusalem (2 Chron.20:17, 22-23);

2) It is pragmatism, not Christianity. To suggest that the preservation of our survival, our freedoms, our prosperity, etc. provide adequate motives for making moral decisions is contrary to scripture and to the view of the early Christians. The strength of this argument rests upon our fondness for life, liberty and property. Jesus said that those who seek to save their lives will lose them, and those who lose their lives for His sake shall find them. This was clearly the view of the early fathers cited above;

3) It gives God’s glory (something He is jealous over) to another. “Every good gift [including life, freedom, security, etc.] comes down from the Father of Lights.” It is God, not armies who decides the fates of nations (Psalm 33:16-19). God becomes angry when earthly military machines are given the credit for outcomes that He sovereignly ordained (Isa.10:12-15).

Your position is exactly opposite of the early Christians, who believed that the Empire was indebted to the Christians for its security and continuance—because, even though the Christians did not fight in the armies, they did pray for the government. This, they believed, contributed more to the safety of the nation than did all the efforts of armies.

Tertullian wrote: “But instead of taking into account what is due to us for the important protection we afford you…you prefer to hold us enemies.” (“Apology” 38)

Origen wrote: “And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God.”

Ken, I am afraid that it is your position that is humanistic, pragmatic and liberal—not that of “our young questioner.” It behooves us to be more humble in our criticisms, especially when they stand upon so weak a foundation.

[Guest]

Axios! I am sorry my zeal and personal experiences color my expressions concerning Anabaptist originated Pacifism etc. I am well aware of those Fathers you cite, and I believe I made it known that prior to the Imperial Edicts of Religious Toleration and State reparations to the Church within the Roman Domains...a few noted Bishops and two Fathers turned Heretic (Tertuliianus the Montanist & Origen the Gnostic) can be cited to promote your cause...as you have done. But I have also stated that Pacifism as you espouse in both extrabiblical and is not the actual position of most if not all these men. They renounce all Collaboration with any Persecuting State, and will not support that State's Government, Police or Military. As this would be supporting the Persecution of God's People and the Unjust execution of the innocent. You cannot cite the vast Majority of Pre Nicaean Church Authorities concerning this...only a selective few...much like your search for praeterist sources prior to the Reformation....and misquotation of Eusebius quoting Irenaeus citing Papius...the same tme of selective usage here.

You admit that the Church suddenly had a change of heart after the Empire became tolerant of Christianity and adopted it as the Official Imperial Religion. I addressed that issue also......There is no inconsistency between the Pre "Edict of Toleration" position of the Church on Christian Collaborative Participation with a persecuting, repressive and unjust State and the Post "Edict of Toleration" position of the Church on Christian Full Participation and Service in a tolerant, liberal and just State. This is not a shocking fact, but clearly shows that to interpret these few sources in a Pacifistic sense and not a Refusnik sense is incorrect.

You have yet to deal with Christ in the Temple, Paul's position on the Roman State and her Right to execute Justice even with the sword..or the fact that your position necessitates a wholesale rejection of the Divine Revelation concerning Civil Authority, Civil Defense, Peace Keeping, Power of Civil Courts, Social Justice and Capitol Punishment for those offenses detailed by God since Cain. Your view makes God and Christ at odds, or God Himself speaks without meaning it...........Messiah never ever denied these God ordianed powers delegated to earthly Civil Government...even among pagans.

All those you cite clearly state that the Christian cannot promote or defend his Faith or Church by Force......Agreed...No Civil Pacifism. All the Church would agree to that. THIS IS origen's position. Cyprianus of Carthago denounced the unjust blood lust of Imperial Warfare, equating it with murder....Agreed...No Civil Pacifism. Arnoius clearly teaches that Christians do not wage war for on behalf of their Faith, nor use the sword to defend it...Amen No Civil Pacifism. Lactantius properly teaches that it is not lawful to accuse one of a Capital offense in order to have him murdered, as was done to Messiah. Emperors past did this often to get rid of enemies. He cites God's Decalogue commandment which prohibits murder (unjust killing) or unwarranted warfare, The Torah prohibits both, but this does not teach Civil Pacifism either. Tertullainus the Heretic is Biblically wrong and is no authority on Orthodoxy. Jesus dealt with and accepted a Roman Centurian, and Peter was sent to the House of the Centurion Cornelius in Caesaraea in order to preach to him the fulness of the Faith and to receive him and his whole household into the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism.(Acts 11:14). If it the Biblical and Historical facts about the precedence of accepting serving Roman Officers, Governors and Imperial Family Members into the Church during the Apostolic times is not enough data for that Montanist heretic Tertullianus what else can I say about his judgement? That you cite him, even when his Sacramentalism is against you is truly fascinating. Evenso, his position of not using the sword on behalf of Christ is not Pacifist. Now we come to the Teacher of Tatian, Justin the Martyr, who also went heretical. Our Enemies are false Teachers and ignorant unbelievers who seek to persecute us, suppress us and exterminate us. We are called to Pray for them and not take up the sword in a Holy JIHAD in order to promote our Faith, defend our Faith and force Conversions to our Faith.....Justin Martyrs statement here teaches just this point...and not your Pacifism.

I am amazed that this is the 7 citation you use as proof of the Pre Edict of Toleration Pacifism of the Church Universal. Highly selective citations without their complete context. I dealt with this too in my reply.....Pacifists have been digging in the Holy Tradition they themselves reject seeking to bolster their Medieval Western position. Even going so far as to cite the support of heretics and those Orthodox whose Catholic Faith absolutely denounces their AntiSacramentalist and Pacifist Theology. It truly amazes me that you put little trust in the Church's unbroken chain of Dogmatic Testamonies, yet seek to use it selectively to bolster your case? Either accept it or reject it...but don't play with it. I can cite these same individuals and the rest of their contemporaries you have yet to mine for supportive "sound bites."

I actually had a Great time at Western Mennonite High School, and I would send Children there when they are of age. If you wish me to go through a litany of Ancient Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic and Assyrian sources I will do so...but I assumed wrongly that since you take little weight in Holy Church Tradition that I should dispense with such a long Litany.....ooops, there's that liturgical stuff again! Ain't spiritual I tell ya!!


Actually although Ambrose of Bishop Milano and his protegee Bishop Augustine of Hippo are not favorites of the Eastern Churches..nor Mine, we do however do grudgingly consider them Saints and with keen eye we handle their wayward works carefully. But you may Question our Jurisdiction's Character if you wish, since we have never been Anabaptists or Pacifists in your sense. Yet, like the Church from Christ until the present, we still refuse to take up the sword to promote, defend or wage war against our spiritual enemies whom we are duty bound to pray for and to seek their salvation. Nor do we accept anyone at the altar who seeks to compromise the Holy Faith and The Holy Church by acting like Judas Iscariot in their aiding, appeasing or participating in any Tyrannical, Despotic, Repressive and Persecuting Earthly Government which defies the LAW OF GOD and seek the annihilation of the innocent. We do not hold to any perspective which seeks to detach the New Covenant Revelation and Paradigm from it's roots in the Old Covenant Revelation. Pacifism as you espouse cannot be seen or found in the Scroll of the Law, the Prophets or in the Writings.....and this was the Canon Scripture of Messiah, His Apostles and early Whole Church until it was completed with the inspired writing, general circulation and general reception by the Apostolic Church. The Moral Law and Social Precepts established since Cain, having been repeated consistently by God through various means and methods until clarified and upheld by Messiah and His Apostles are unchanging and do not conflict.

It is a Western view that the Church shall stand aloof from Civil affairs...but we take the wholistic viewpoint. We hold dual citizenship and must render to Caesar what he is due, and render to God what he is due. When Caesar demands things that only belong to God we refuse him, even unto death if that is what it takes.....but if Caesar seeks to uphold Civil Order, defends Equal Rights for all it's Citizens, Promotes Freedom of Speech, Supports Religious Liberty, offers a Political voice and whose benevolence assists in the Great Commission then we can exercise or Civil Rights and perform our Social duties to our Community both Local and National. There is no contradiction between Christ and Divinely appointed Civil Authority, so long as the State does not conflict with the Liberty and Mission of the Church. If you think I am out of step with the Historic Church, you really need to research you data...Traditional Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Old Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy and All Oriental Orthodoxy stands united in this Ancient Paradigm contrary to the fringe Radical Protestantists of the Reformation (i.e. Anabaptists, Quakers etc.) and Liberal Progressives Protestants of the 20th Century.

I present the Recorded History of God's Leadership of Israel in defense of Civil Defense, Just Warfare and the proper use of Capital Punishment. I offer not only the Decalogue, but the Scroll of the Covenant as evidence that God defines Social Sin and the prescribed punishments for lawlessness. There is Mercy for the Merciful and swift Justice for the unjust. I submit to you that Neither Messiah or His Apostles ever revoked the authority of Civil Governments nor God's People submission and just participation in them. Furthermore, to hold that only unregenerate sinners alone may vote, hold office political and judicial offices, police and defend the commonwealth while regenerate sinners can enjoy the fruits provided by these lost folk is nowhere taught in Scripture, exampled in Scripture nor attested to in Holy Tradition.....it is a false dichotomy of late origin. Just because we are not spiritually apart of this fallen world, does not mean we are not to integrate ourselves into this world in order to Salt it and transform it through our godly and just participation. Anabaptist Pacifism seems to me to be ascetic, reclusive and unbalanced in it's selective use of Scripture and Church history.

You say you are a good citizen because you do not support capital punishment for murderers, lethal force to keep the peace or in defense of Family, Friends, the Innocent and the Country which provides you the Liberty and Prosperity to do as you please and say what you believe. I say you are a law abiding citizen who who reaps the benefits of this Society but seeks to remain a well meaning, love talking but aloof and antisceptic christian citizen when you are called to get dirty and give back to the Country which you owe so much to. For whom much is given much is required. There is a time for everything under the sun: A time for Warfare and a time for Peacekeeping, a time to kill and a time to give life. Your position has no room for this eternal verity. We are called to defend the weak, the widow and the orphan....by the sword if necessary as the divinely ordained sword of the Government...to the death if that is the Greatest form of Love we can offer. This is the Word of God from Moses, from the Prophets, From Messiah, from the Apostles and from Holy Tradition. What good is it to speak out for, protest on behalf of, and to pray for the defenseless in Rowanda, Africa, if you have the military means to use the sword justly to execute justice in stopping or preventing the genocide of Hundreds of Thousands. Your Faith would prevent you from obeying God's Law to stop Murderers. You would, if leathal force alone would stop the Murders, do nothing against Hitler's Germany, STALIN"S soviet Russia, Moa's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia...not to mention Sadam's Iraq. I am sorry, this type of antiseptic and biblically selective faith touches a raw nerve in me. God forbid you should have to choose between defensive killing to save your kids and passively participating in their murder as you do everything but pick up your sword. I hope for your Kids a Traditional Christian is near at hand or a just pagan willing to play Good samaritan even if he gets bloody or dies in the process.

I see pacifist Hermanutics unbalanced like Origen's idiotic and out of context self castration because the Master taught it......and he was educated!! Sorry, Steve...I love you and all Pacifist Christian or Not.....but I have little respect or use for the paradigm and it's handling of Scripture and the Holy Tradition it uses while hypocritically rejecting it's testimonial authority to the unbroken chain of evidence of and unity in Essential Doctrine and Practices of the Church from the Apostlic Era until the Great Schism. It would be hypocritical if I cite as supportive evidence that which I deem as untrustworthy, capricious and mostly irrelevant. I am sorry my honesty and blunt nature seems tactless.....but I do not like pretense. I call it like I see it, and you know where I stand on an issue. Paul uses the same tact, as do many Patristic Fathers....so I feel I have precedence.

I do see a great and vast difference between our Church's Apostolic Fathers and Holy Tradition and your Anabaptist Pacifist fathers and that their modern liberal pacifist descendants. And I still think it bizarre that you would put a Witness (Holy Tradition of the Fathers) on the Stand for your Case which I have heard you impeach as untrustworthy and fallen from Apostolic Orthodoxy.......that is a bizarre tactic Steve. I am not condescending , just amazed...and blunt about it as usual.

My statements to the questioner was concerning his questioning the validity of the Apostolic Faith and Ordination of his Thomasine Buddy he disagreed with because he did not hold to a Pacifist Faith. My replies dealt with that questioners criticism. I doubt our Holy Tradition is the favorite topic or major in any Anabaptist Bible School...as they too would dismiss it's validity. Did Paul use sarcasm or the Patristic Fathers to drive home a point? Hyperbole? Yes......I am free to do so as are you. I made no personal attacks on character though.

If Christ cleansing the Temple is too general for your taste, how bout Messiah slaughtering all who resist His Second Advent? Militant enough yet? Or is that just hyperbole and allegorical too? GOD IS NOT PACIFISTIC NOR IS HIS SON. God is patient and long suffering. We are called to be agents of His Love/Mercy as well as His Justice/Severity. Can't you see that?

There is a difference between murder and justified killing. That is the error of Pacifism...all killing is seen as evil. I wonder if God knows that? It seems the Torah understands the distinction...so does Holy Tradition. Christian Vegans, who are also Pacifists because it applies to human relations, use the same argument and usage of Scripture you do to denounce the killing of animals for food and clothes. You support NT Veganism this too? If not why? It is consistent with Pacifism.

You say that Paul appears to be a pacifist.....wow. He appears to be saying that like our spiritual opponents require a spiritual military response and not a violent physical response.....because our Messianic Kingdom, Church and Covenant Faith cannot be defended, promoted or established on earth by violent force or coersion by the sword...as Paganism was wont to do. Even the Old Covenant Faith and Divine Rule could not be defended, promoted or established on earth through violence.......yet personal and national defense was permitted by God...so too now.

You my have a point about Anabaptist history .... and I will recheck my sources to see if they fair minded.

As far as my statement that "you owe your Bible etc to TRADITIONAL christianity etc....I will not recant. It is cold hard fact. You presume God had no part in it. Pragmatism is not unChristian or unknown in Scripture or Holy Tradition. Reason is a gift of God to determine the will of God based upon BIBLICAL revelation and facts on the ground. Show me were scripture or Holy Tradition prohibits using the reason God gave us, what you call "pragmatic" thought. That Islam was stopped is a miracle and God gets all the glory, and you and all Free Christians of Europe and America have reaped the benefits. Your citations of the two heretics does not support your last position....Last things. To misrepresent or dismiss the Hebrew/LXX Scriptures to say the Self Defensive Lethal Force (War), Capital Punishment for Murderers and That Jehovah the God Of War has prohibited all killing is clear case of a self imposed cognitive dissonance. Christ is the God of Israel, who will come sword in hand to slay all who oppose Him...God has not changed because He has assumed full humanity in Christ. You seek to use selective citation of New Testament Scripture with a Pacifistic isogetics to teach that God in Christ is not the same God at Sinai. Christian Pacifism's weakness is revealed in it's inability to show that it's dogma can be shown and taught in the Tanakh alone.....as this is what the early Church had as it's Canon. You cannot teach your pacifism from the Torah, the Prophets or the Writings.......the only Bible of Messiah, the Apostles and the Church. Then you seek to show that the NT Scriptures appear to show, or may seem to imply.....bogus. In Context with the Tanakh it fully agrees with and is dependant upon it can not be so. That is why only Western Anabaptists and Secular Progressive Liberals espouse it...it is not the Faith of Apostolic Christianity or Traditional Protestantism.


in Messiah,
Ken.

[Guest]

Ken,
In response to:
"If you wish me to go through a litany of Ancient Latin, Greek, Syriac, Coptic and Assyrian sources I will do so.."
Ken, If you would be so kind I would appretiate you citing 5 or so documents and authors prior to the Constantine that would take an anti-pacifist stance, or a pro-capital punishment stance. I'm understudied in early church history and haven't yet read the authors or documents that you refer to. Thank you.

In addition, I was also curious on the lighter side of things why you think Thomas has a lasting "orthodox" church while all the successors of the other apostles went apostate. Why does only Thomas have the "good fruit." Secondly, do you believe that the psuedopygrophal work so called "the gospel of Saint Thomas" is genuine?

Please be gentle in your responses, I'm young and understudied.

-Jeff Jacob Lacine

[_Steve]

[Hey Jeff! While we await Ken's reply, I thought I'd post my response to his latest post. But first, does "understudied" have the same connotations as "undernourished"? Just thought I'd loosen up the crowd with a joke, in the tradition of some preachers I have heard—but not those under whom I have understudied. :-) ]

Howdy Ken,
You keep speaking about “my pacifism.” You apparently don’t know much about “my” pacifism—through no fault of your own, since I have made no reference to it in this series of posts—and you misrepresent my position every time you make reference to it.

The subject of the last few posts has not been anything related to my personal theology or ethic, but rather to that of the early church fathers. I even clarified in my last message: "I do not say that I agree with them, but it is not my opinion, but theirs, that we are discussing."

Instead of speaking about this subject in a rational and disinterested manner (as I have been attempting to do), you have acted like a cornered animal desperately lashing out against SD (who first raised the subject) and myself, as if you actually knew what he and I believe and could critique it.

This topic was raised by SD’s statement that he did not see how the apostolic succession of the Eastern Church could be maintained if it did not support the early fathers’ position on non-resistance.

You shot back, seemingly with a vengeance, saying that SD was ignorant, both of scripture and of the writings of the fathers. You then presented an undocumented alternative report of what those fathers taught on this subject. You quoted none of the church fathers in your rebuttal.

My first response simply corrected you and supported SD’s assertion about the view of the earliest fathers, and I cited all of the fathers whose writings on the subject (to my knowledge) have been preserved. Neither SD nor myself actually defended a pacifist position. We only pointed out (apparently correctly) that the early church writers advocated such a position. It is you, not we, who depend on the fathers for the validity of your viewpoints, which is, I suppose, why you are so desperate to deny that the fathers believed differently than you do. SD may be a pacifist in his personal convictions, but he did not say so. He simply pointed to a historical fact.

In your response to me, you acted as if I had revealed my views on pacifism (which I have not, but don’t mind doing so). You have said that most of the church fathers did not agree with the seven witnesses I cited, but, again, you did not so much as quote one alternative witness to document that others believed what you claim they believed. Nor did you demonstrate from the context that those men I was quoting didn’t mean what I believe they mean. You simply accuse me of using “selective citations without their complete context,” but you give neither selections nor context for your position. What’s up with that?

If I might give some personal advice, when it comes to entering a debate, you will convince more of your opponents by citing scriptures and data that are relevant to the topic on the table, than by flying into a rage and turning the discussion into a personal attack against your opponents. This is what people who lack evidence for their positions do, and it gives the impression that you might be one of those people.

I don’t believe that anyone in this discussion has spoken uncharitably either toward you or toward your position, even when disagreeing with you. No one has chosen to uncharitably associate you with any Christians of the past who might have decried pacifism in order to defend their own military atrocities. We are trying to discuss this matter objectively, so that the interests of truth might be served, rather than a sectarian loyalty to a particular denomination.

I knew that Tertullian had become a Montanist in his later years, but I am not aware that his views on the present topic were ever disclaimed by his Christian contemporaries. In fact, his statements on this subject sound as if he agreed completely with the other contemporary witnesses I quoted, whom you do not regard to be heretics.

I also knew that Origen is today considered “unorthodox” on a number of his viewpoints, but I am not aware of this being the judgment that the churches of North Africa in his time would have made of him (and the Churches of North Africa had as much right to be called “the Church” as did those of other geographical regions). As far as I know, his views were a fair representation of those of the churches of his region and time. Do you know otherwise?

Regardless what you think of these men in retrospect, I believe that their statements about non-resistance represented the mainstream viewpoint of the majority of the Christians in their time and their locales. In denying this, you have only asserted that I am mistaken. You have not documented it.

You wrote of me: “You cannot cite the vast Majority of Pre Nicaean Church Authorities concerning this.” But, Ken, up to this point, you have not demonstrated an ability to cite even one of the ante-Nicene fathers in favor of your view. Perhaps you can do this. You have not yet demonstrated it.

You also suggest that I am inconsistent in quoting the fathers upon the subject of non-resistance while I reject their sacramental approach to worship. How is this inconsistent? What better sources could I quote to establish what their views were on this subject (which is what we were discussing)? If I wished to establish what their views were on sacramentalism, I would be equally willing to quote what they said on that subject, whether I agreed with them or not. Our discussion has been a historical exploration, not a doctrinal one.

You yourself exhibit a strange inconsistency when you mention that you disagree with much that was written by Ambrose and Augustine, though you “do grudgingly consider them saints.” So you can “selectively” take what these men believed and reject the rest? I grant that this is your prerogative, but why would I, then, be “inconsistent” if I were to do the same thing with Tertullian, Origen or Cyprian as you do with Ambrose and Augustine?

You wrote: “Pacifism as you espouse is both extrabiblical and is not the actual position of most if not all these men.” Again, you don’t know what pacifism I may or may not espouse. I can affirm that it is not precisely like that of “these men,” but I can assure you that nothing about it is extrabiblical.

Unlike yourself, I had not had any exposure to Anabaptists or any other Christian pacifists when my views on this subject were being formed. Influenced by nothing but scripture alone, I developed the theology of Christian non-resistance in a religious environment where I had never met or heard of a Christian pacifist. And what exactly IS my “theology of Christian non-resistance” I will give it in brief summary, so that, next time, you may critique the man himself, and not the straw man.


My view, as it turns out, resembles that of some of the early fathers, in that I believe in two spheres of authority and two vocations. I believe that God ordained the secular State for the purpose of punishing criminals and protecting the innocent, and that He ordained the Church as His arm of mercy and redemption to sinners.

This view acknowledges the rightful place of the State to defend the interests of its citizens, and of the Church to lay down its life for the salvation of the lost. In the minds of the early fathers, whom I cited, these spheres were not thought to overlap. The instrument issued to the State for its function is the “sword;” the weapons issued to the Church for her function are prayer, the Word of God, and the power of a holy testimony.

The Church is thus instructed to pray for the State, as for “all men,” but as a priesthood to the nations, it does not become involved in even the legitimate wars of the State (not all of the State’s wars are legitimate). This principle is illustrated in the Levites being left out of the numbering of those who would go out to battle, and in God’s not permitting David to build the temple because of his former, legitimate vocation as a warrior).

The Church may well benefit from the wars conducted by the State, and the State definitely benefits from the prayers and the spiritual influence of the Church. There is thus a trade-off. If any benefits more from the services of the other, it is the State that benefits from the warfare of the Church, since we fight a war with “mighty” weapons, whereas the State has the use only of “carnal” ones. As the Old Testament abundantly proves, the welfare of a nation is not guaranteed by the strength of its armies, but by the favor of God, which is more truly invoked by the prayers and influence of the Church upon a society than by the respective branches of its military.

This is my position. It should be easy enough for anyone familiar with the scriptures to identify the scriptural data that informs my conclusions on each particular. One might justly challenge my exegesis on specific passages, if he thinks has the exegetical ability, but none can call the viewpoint “extrabiblical.” Each point has arisen from the study of the Bible—and nothing else. When I, in later life, found that the earliest Christians in the first three centuries had reached similar conclusions, it only encouraged me that they had studied the same Bible that I had.

You wrote:
“You have yet to deal with Christ in the Temple, Paul's position on the Roman State and her Right to execute Justice even with the sword…or the fact that your position necessitates a wholesale rejection of the Divine Revelation concerning Civil Authority, Civil Defense, Peace Keeping, Power of Civil Courts, Social Justice and Capitol Punishment for those offenses detailed by God since Cain. Your view makes God and Christ at odds, or God Himself speaks without meaning it.”

These are serious charges. None of them are true, but I would not expect you to know that, since you were not, until now, acquainted with my position. What I actually would expect you to have known is that you were not familiar with my position, unless you had heard me expound it elsewhere. But if you had, you would not have been able to level these misguided criticisms against it.

In my last post, I did deal with the matter of Christ in the temple briefly and adequately, insofar as it has any relevance to my position. The only reason I did not go more fully into it is that it has no bearing whatsoever on my views of Christian non-resistance. If you had known my views, you would have known this. Furthermore, you should also know that the matter of Christ in the Temple has no relevance to anybody’s view of Christianity and war, since no one was so much as injured, much less killed, in that incident, and there was absolutely nothing about it that resembled any form of war.

My view does not necessitate “a wholesale rejection of the divine revelation” concerning the function of the state (as per Romans 13). I affirm it more unconditionally than you do (see below).

I do not put Christ and God at odds. I see a complete harmony in principle between God’s view of war in the Old Testament and Christ’s and the apostles’ teaching in the New. What I do not affirm is equivalence between the wars of the State of Israel in the Old Testament and the wars fought by any modern pagan States. Did God ever approve of an Israelite fighting on behalf of a secular or pagan State (David’s fighting under Achish is never said to have been approved by God, and he never really fought on the side of the Philistines anyway—he only pretended to)? Explain, if you can, how the holy wars of the Old Testament, which did include killing civilians and infants, and which did, contrary to your assertion, allow for “unwarranted warfare” (see Deut. 20), are in any sense parallel to the ethics of modern wars of secular states. If you can do this satisfactorily, then we can entertain your arguments justifying Christian participation in modern wars, based upon Old Testament precedents.

The argument for Christian soldiery based upon the treatment of centurions by Jesus and the apostles is shopworn and irrelevant to my position—or to that of the fathers that I cited in previous post. Even some the fathers I cited made allowance (in the portions I did not quote) for men who were soldiers before their conversion to “remain in the calling in which they were called.”

But the real weakness of this “centurion-convert” argument is that it asserts as fact something that we do not and cannot know about these men, namely, that they were never counseled after their conversion to leave the military. It is entirely possible that they were allowed to remain in the army, but counseled (as the soldiers were by John the Baptist) to “do violence to no man”— but we simply can’t say. We don’t have any record at all of the process of their being discipled after their conversion. They may have been counseled to leave the military, or they may not have been. They may also have been counseled to give up drunkenness and fornication, but we are not told of this either.

We are told exactly nothing concerning the Christian training of these men after they came to faith. We also read of several sinful women and tax collectors coming to faith. Though we read of one being told to “go and sin no more,” in most instances, we have no record at all of their being told to give up their sinful ways. They may indeed have been told, off the record, to give these things up—but it is equally possible that the genuineness of their faith brought forth spontaneous fruit of repentance (as in the case of Zacchaeus), without their having to be told. This may have been true of the centurions as well, for all we know.

As is the case with all of the messages you have posted here, it is pretty frustrating to dialog about disagreements with you, for several reasons:

First, because you make sweeping allusions to the contents of “the Scriptures” or “the Law” or “the Tanakh,” etc., but rarely quote a single verse in favor of any of your points, which would allow us to examine your position’s scriptural strength or weakness;

Second, because you attack people and movements, rather than dealing with the issues;

Third, because you do not acknowledge or interact at all with the arguments of those who disagree with you (e.g., you have offered no counter-exegesis of the scriptures I have presented);

Fourth, because it is clear that the scriptures are not really the basis for your specific viewpoints, but the tradition of the Eastern Church is, and thus we do not even have a starting point of agreement from which to approach or evaluate our differences.

For example, you give no scriptural support whatever for the following three assertions:

1. “We hold dual citizenship.”

I have never seen this stated in scripture, though I have heard it affirmed hundreds of times by Christians. The scripture does say “our citizenship is in heaven,” and we serve “another king, one Jesus.” We are also told that we cannot serve two masters (which was one of the arguments used by the fathers to show why Christians should not join Caesar’s military). We are told that we are “strangers and pilgrims” here, and “ambassadors”—but none of this affirms dual citizenship. It is true that, in the eyes of the world, we hold, by default, citizenship in some earthly nation or another—a fact that Paul thrice exploited to get out of legal trouble, and which we might legitimately do as well. But from God’s point of view, He gets all of our loyalty (it’s called “all your heart, and all your soul, and all your strength, and all your mind”).

2. You say that we can participate in Caesar’s warfare “if Caesar seeks to uphold Civil Order, defends Equal Rights for all it's Citizens, Promotes Freedom of Speech, Supports Religious Liberty, offers a Political voice.”

But where, may I ask, do the scriptures name any of these Renaissance/Enlightenment-era values as being determinants for the legitimacy of the rule of kings, or for our support of them? Everything Paul or Peter wrote about obedience to rulers was written in the context of the reign of Nero. Would you suggest that Nero defended the equal rights of all of his citizens (including slaves and persecuted Christians?), promoted freedom of speech, supported religious liberty, or offered a political voice to the church? You are speaking as if Paul wrote Romans 13 during the reign of Constantine! Our submission to rulers is required even when those rulers are very much of the pre-Enlightenment variety. Kinder, gentler rulers are not, by virtue of their milder temperament, given a greater claim on our service than are the older, despotic type.

3. “I present the Recorded History of God's Leadership of Israel in defense of Civil Defense, Just Warfare…”

All right, may I call your bluff? Presenting "the Recorded History of God's Leadership of Israel in defense of Civil Defense, Just Warfare…” is precisely what you have NOT done. Where in the Tanakh (Old Testament) do you find this teaching about civil defense and “just warfare”? As for the latter, nothing could be further from the “Just War” ideals than are the wars of the Jews against the Canaanites, the Amalekites, or their more distant neighbors (Deut.20:13-16). “Just War” guidelines (developed by Cicero, Plato, Augustine and Aquinas) do not allow for wars of aggression, or for the wiping out of civilian populations, or for wars of retaliation or recovery of lost territory. Where do you discover any precedent or teaching about such “Just Wars” in the Old Testament, or in the New?

And where in the Bible are we told that civil defense is the appropriate response of citizens of pagan nations under attack? Did not the Torah teach that it would be just such defensive action (as opposed to surrender) on the part of Israel’s enemies, that would justify Israel’s annihilating every male—who would have been spared had they not resisted (Deut.20:10-13)? Was it not part of Jeremiah’s message to Jerusalem that they should not defend themselves, but rather to surrender to the Babylonians (Jer.38:2)? You have no scripture whatsoever in favor of your positions. The fact that you think you do makes me wonder how much you actually read the scriptures—in Aramaic or any other language.

I not only wonder if you read the scripture, but if you read what I have written before seeking to critique it. For example, you wrote: “You say you are a good citizen because you do not support capital punishment for murderers [nor] lethal force…in defense of Family, Friends, the Innocent…”

First, I never said anything remotely like this, because it isn’t true to my beliefs. I said that I am a law-abiding citizen even though I do not kill people. I never said that my refusal to kill, nor any of my beliefs about non-resistance, is what constitutes me as a good citizen, as you suggest. Further, I actually do support capital punishment, as well as family defense. I have written at length and published a magazine article about this in years past. I will eventually post the article at my website [this article has now been posted at my website: www.thenarrowpath.com , under the link: "Topical Articles"]. Before telling me what I say, how about actually looking at what I have said?

Since I believe that it is most respectful to those who disagree with me for me to interact with their arguments, rather than to ignore them, I will present below a number of your statements (in quotations), and affix my responses:

“If Christ cleansing the Temple is too general for your taste, how bout Messiah slaughtering all who resist His Second Advent? Militant enough yet? Or is that just hyperbole and allegorical too? GOD IS NOT PACIFISTIC NOR IS HIS SON.”

I have never suggested for a moment that Christ’s cleansing the temple was either an instance of hyperbole nor of allegory. I am not sure why you would think that, or how anyone could take the story as such.

Nor did I ever intimate that God or His Son were pacifists. The scriptures demonstrate abundantly that God “is a man of war” and that Jesus “will fight against them” with the sword out of His mouth. My view is drawn from the scriptures, which I carefully read in order to ascertain what is true, so I would never be tempted to deny these obvious facts. My brand of “pacifism,” however, affirms that God and Christ alone are sovereign and that they use the wars of man to bring sovereign and deserved judgment upon nations whose iniquities have become full.

I also believe that the sovereign God alone has the right to dispatch both men and angels in the execution of His wrath upon sinful nations. This, it seems to me, is the very presupposition that lies behind every sanctioned war in scripture. It follows that, unless God sends the armies, they march in rebellion. Hence, the Canaanites were in rebellion against God when they sent their armies out against the Israelites, and the Judahites were in rebellion when they fought against Babylon.

God always favored the victory of those that He sent, whether Israelite or heathen, and those who resisted the ones He sent were in rebellion against God. If Israel had marched against Canaan when the spies first returned, they would have been in obedience to God. In marching against the same enemies the next day, they were in rebellion. Israel’s prophets informed them when God was or was not sending them on a military campaign. Who is informing our leaders today of God’s will in the matter?

“Pragmatism is not unChristian or unknown in Scripture or Holy Tradition…Show me where scripture or Holy Tradition prohibits using the reason God gave us, what you call ‘pragmatic’ thought.”

I do not equate the use of reason with “pragmatism.” The latter is the idea that “the end justifies the means,” and that an action that is found to produce desirable results is therefore morally correct. The former is merely thinking rationally, an activity that I highly recommend!

“You seek to use selective citation of New Testament Scripture with a Pacifistic isogetics to teach that God in Christ is not the same God at Sinai.”

Actually, no, I don’t.

“Christian Pacifism's weakness is revealed in it's inability to show that it's dogma can be shown and taught in the Tanakh alone.....as this is what the early Church had as it's Canon.”

It is true that the Tanakh was the only written scripture for the church in the first twenty or thirty years after Christ’s ascension, but they also had the words of Christ, preserved in oral tradition, to shape their thinking. His exposition of the Tanakh, I think, is that which most contributed to their ethic of non-resistance.

Well now that the topic has moved from that of the apostolic succession of the Eastern Church to the ethics of Christians in war, it might be good if , after Ken has posted the quotes from the church fathers that favor his Church's position, any further discussion on this topic were to be continued under a different heading than "The Eastern Church."

Responses are welcome.

[Guest]

PAX DOMINI JJL!!
The Nazarani Church of the East was planted and established by Mar +Shimun Kepa (St. Simon Peter), Mar +Ehoda Thoma (St. Judas Thomas), Mar +Addai Labai (St. Thaddeus Lebbaeus), Mar +Bartolmai (St. Bartholomew, Mar +Shimun Tanana (St. Simon Zealotes) and Mar +Mari between the years 45 AD and 73 AD, when Mar +Ehoda Thoma was Martyred during his Indian Evangelistic Work near on the out skirts of Present Day Madras, India. His Body was later removed from it's tomb and returned to Assyrian Edessa (Present day Iraqi Urfa) to prevent desecration by the Hindus of Madras. Later it was removed from it's tomb by Latin Crusaders to be used as their Sacred Relic and was shipped to an Italian Basillica for veneration.

The Church of the East has been outside the Imperial control of the Roman Empire since it's inception. It is to this Community that the Hebrew/Jewish Nazaraean Community fled to between the years 70 ~ 135 AD. The Church of the East received and recognized the Authority of the Church Leadership of this Exiled Hebrew Church of Syria, Galilee and Judaea. It's Liturgy and Customs were assimilated into the Eastern Church and became our Faith and Tradition..in Nazaraean Aramaic. That is why we are still called Mar +Thoma's "Nazarani'" (Aramaic adaption of the Hebrew "ha Naztari'im = Nazaraean Jews), i.e. Saint Thomas' Nazaraeans.

"Nazaraeans" was the original Hebrew designation of the Jewish Followers of Y'shu b'Meshikha (Jesus Christ) by their unbelieving Jewish brethren. In Hellenized Syrian Antioch Jewish and Gentile Nazaraeans where first called "Christiani" in their Koine Greek Language. So in the among GraecoRomans "Christian and Nazaraean" were synonyms.....only later would this change do to GraecoRoman disgust for all things Jewish after the tedious and expensive Rebellions of Jewry in Syria, Galilee, Samaria, Decapolis, Idumaea and in Aegypt. The Predominantly GraecoRoman populated "Christian" Church distanced itself from it's "Jewishness" and former "Nazaraean" Name and heritage. All Jewish and Aramaean followers of Christ who persisted to continue in their non GreacoRoman "Nazaraean Way" were slowly suppressed, cast off and eventually excommunicated by both "Imperial Catholic Church of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire"

The last recognized Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem of the Family Line of Christ died during the Bar Kosiva Revolt of 132~135 AD. During this Jewish revolt most of the Jewish Nazaraeans fled into the safety of the Aramaic speaking Church of the East founded by their Apostles years before. After the Roman Victory in 135 AD all Jewry was prohibited from Judaea and it's Capitol Jerusalem...now rebuilt along Roman Lines as Alia Capitolina. And the GraecoRomanization of the Church within the Imperial Domains was complete. The Jerusalem Church was now 100% Greek or Hellenized Syrian..and it is from this point that Jerusalem's First Bishop from among the "uncircumcized" was elected, ratified and enthroned.

From 135 AD within the Roman Empire the Western Church quickly developed an AntiJewish/Antipagan paradigm, which also developed more slowly within the Egyption Church and spread from their into parts of the Eastern Empire's Church. A sudden polemic shift can be seen in Church writings and by the creation of psuedopigrapha among the Latins, Greeks, Coptics and Arabs. Indeed as persecuted Roman Citizens the Church under Imperial Dominion sought to show how non Jewish and Superior in Philosophy, Religion and Ritual they were in comparison to those troublesome, backwards, superstious, apostate, and God forsaken rebellious Jews! They put Jewry and their Judaism in the same distasteful group with ignorant and immoral pagans. Gone were the days when "Salvation is of the Jewish People", and "To the Jew first and to the Gentiles second." To make their Church and it's Catholic Faith acceptable to Imperial Rome, this new approach was adopted. All in the search for Imperial Fovor and Legalization.

Rome had Outlawed Jewish National existence because of the Jewish Revolts within their Homeland and some nearby Diaspora Colonies throughout the Imperial Dominions. GraecoRoman Christianity already had enough on it's hands with being deemed by the Senate, the People and Emperor of Rome as a illicit, atheistic, and new insurrectionist subversive secret society spreading from Judaea which practiced infanticide, cannibalism, sexual immorality and witchcraft. Thus we see a frantic denunciation of all those charges, as well as an attempt to disassociate Christ, the Faith and the Church from their Jewish spiritual, cultural and ritual heritage! They sought to denounce, condemn and refute both Jewry, Judaism as well as Polytheist Idolaters and Idolatry. Thus many unscriptural concepts, unscriptural theological developments and ultimately heretical movements were sourced by this reactionary rejection of Christianity's Historical Hebraic Paradigm, Moorings and Context.

We in the Church of the East have never felt the need to disassociate ourselves from our Jewish Ancestry or Hebraic Paradigm. It was because of this refusal to endorse such a Paradigm shift and the resulting Doctrinal, Theological and Religious errors and innovations that the Nazarani Church of the East denounced the Ephesian Council in 431 AD, and refused to accept it's GraecoRoman Mariological error. We to this day will not call the Blessed Virgin Mother of Messiah (Christotokos) by the Pagan Title "Mother of God" (Theotokos), even though it is claimed only used to support the full deity of Messiah as God. We are too aware of Mother Goddess worship in Ephesos, Alexandria and Rome!! Messiah's Mother (Christotokos) Marta +Miriam can not be Honored with adoption of the mythologies, images and titles of Artemis, Diana, Isis, Hathor, Ceres, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, Ashtoreth and Magna Mater. We revere the Blessed Mother, and give her the honor due her elect role in Salvation and as the Second Eve. She is lifted up as a role model of the work of Divine Grace in union with a Pure Faith and the obedient and glorious results which are produced by it. She is still just a sinner saved by Grace. She is not immaculately conceived as the mediatorix of Divine Salvation, or was she divinely resurrected three days after her entombment and assumed bodily into Paradise as the installed Queen of Heaven with her Son our Lord. This All Orthodox Nazarani denounce as did Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople H.H. Mar + Yohanan Nestorios, who was born a Syrian of Antioch but was trained in the Church of the East by the great Assyrian Fathers Diodore and Theodore.

Even when the Christiology as defined by the Bible Academies of Antioch, Edessa and the Church of the East was adopted as the Official Orthodoxy of the whole Roman Empire by the Chalcedonian Council ( to the disgust and rejection of the Academy of Alexandria and Her Coptic Church), the Church of the East would not seek reunion with any of them. They still persist, even in their divisions, to call upon the Blessed Mother of Christ as the Mediatorix Queen Mother of Heaven! She is honored and pictured in the very same fashion as were PreChristian Rome's, Alexandria's, Antioch's, Ephesos', Chalcedon's and Byzantium's Mother Goddesses! Their Mariaology is pure syncretism imposed upon scripture..alien to the Hebraic Nazarani Paradigm. This and many other GreacoRoman deviations, innovations and outright suppression of Historic Apostolic Doctrine and Practices exists among the Catholics (also Rome's Rival Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Chaldean and Malakaran Uniate Rite Churches) in submission to Rome's Patriarch; the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greeks, Cypriots, Serbs, Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Byelorussians, Romanians, Poles, Latvians, Estonians, Lithoanians, Japanese etc.) in Communion with Patriarch of Constantinople; the African Orthodox Church (Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Erietreans) in Communion with the Alexandrian Patriarch and their allied brethren the Syrian Orthodox Church (Syrians, Arabians, Armenians, Syro~Malakarans) which is in Communion with Patriarch of Alexandria. Although we acknowledge their Ancient Heritage and Common Apostolic Birth with ours, we are not in full communion with any of these Patriarchates or accept their errors. We do not say that they are not "Christians" and as such are Members of Christ through His Saving Grace......but we admit our differences and withstand their errors. Rome is the most corrupted and errant. Eastern Orthodoxy is second, and the African and Syrian Churches come in third. In the Roman Church it is Theological, Doctrinal and Church practice which we see corrupted by vain Western Traditions and Innovations. Eastern Orthodoxy has drifted into the error of Collaboration with Persecuting and Godless States in order to continue in wealth and social rank.She has adopted many Roman Ways in her race to beat Rome at her own Game.

If the Church of Rome is the modern Church of Laodicea, then is modern Eastern Orthodoxy is the Modern Church of Pergamos. The African Orthodox Church is modern Church of Ephesos, and the Syrian Orthodox Church is modern Thyatira. The Church of the East and all who continue in her Nazarani Way are the modern Church of Smyrna. The Canterbury Communion of the Anglican Churches and Episcopal Churches seem to be the modern Church of Sardis, and their European cousins the Traditional/Concervative Protestant Churches of Europe and America seem to fit the image of the modern Church of Philadelphia. You see we do not claim, as others do, that we Smyrnans are the only True Church. We recognize that the CATHOLIC CHURCH is contained in many different herds, but is owned by one Great Shepherd. There are Faithful Saints in every Church, but not every Church is equally faithful. All are redeemed by the Grace of God despite their many deviations and failure to continue in the Nazaraean Way as once for all delivered to the Saints..the Jew first and to the Gentile second.

I am not saying that all of the Church of the East, which was founded by Mar +Thoma in Assyria unto India is perfectly healthy spiritually or united jurisdictionally. Our Church has been the subject of foreign domination by Syrians, Turks, Portugese, Dutch, and lastly the British. Each Colonial Power sought to either subject or transform our Church into satellites of their own. Thus we in Mar +Thoma Church in India & Abroad have Syrian Othodox (Syro-Malankarans) Mar +Thoma Nazaranis, Portugese Catholic (Portugese Malankarans/Goans) Mar +Thoma Nazaranis, SyroChaldaean (Assyrian Church of the East) Malakaran Mar +Thoma Nazarani, Chaldean Rite Thomasines and Mar Thoma Church Reformed.

Then there is Our Church of over 2.5 Million throughout Israel, Syria, Africa, Nepal, India, Burma, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Great Britain, North America and South America. The Mar +Thoma Nazarani Church of the East and Abroad is also known as the Saint Thomas Holy Apostolic Evangelical Orthodox Church of the East & Abroad (i.e. AEOC). We have acknowledged the beauty of, and assimilated much of the good and acceptable Traditions of these diverse and varied cultures. All within the Jurisdiction of AEOC/UBC are United in Dogmatic Essentials of the Nazarani Faith (As revealed in Scripture, defined at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and affirmed in the Synods of the Church of the East), Practice the 7 Sacraments, Perpetuate the Apostolic Succession Mar +Shimun Kepa & Mar +Ehoda Thoma in Holy Orders of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons; we allow for Liberty in Christ on nonessential matters, customs, form of worship , and demand everything done in Love.

We have Communities who use worship using the Syrian Liturgy, Assyrian Liturgy, Byzantine Liturgy, Latin Liturgy, Anglican Liturgy, Old Gallican Liturgy, the Messianic Jewish Liturgy, Old Catholic Liturgy, Modern Catholic Liturgy, Lutheran Liturgy and and various Reformed Service Books and Contemporary Praise/Worship Services.....always with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the focal point and consummation of the Celebration. So you see, our Jurisdiction has reabsorbed those Mar Thoma Nazarani who have been within other Traditions imposed upon them through the last 400 years....our Jurisdiction has decided to seek unity at what is the most important (Historic Nazarani Dogmatic Faith once accepted by all Thomasines) and allow liberty in that which in the past has divided (Nonessentials imposed upon Thomasines by Missionaries from Foreign Powers) as well as allow for modern expressions of Faith.....always with the goal of showing Christ's Love.

Now our acceptance and promotion of such diversity within Oriental Orthodoxy has ruffled the feathers of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and even among our Assyrian Church of the East Brethren!! You see, they think everyone should basically worship alike in their own native tongue...same liturgy, same dress, same, same, same. We do not share this view, and have not since our Catholicos~Patriarch H.H. Mar +Yohann Dalin III was in 1921 impressed upon by Christ through the Holy Spirit to open the Church up for the coming return of Thomasine Christians of the Orient from among the various imposed Colonial Churches: Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant.

When our Church went Abroad in 1930 and began to receive Western converts and non Thomasine Catholic & Protestant Christian transfers into our Church. Instead of making them become Orientals in Worship and Custom...as others do, we had them worship in the fashion that was both culturally and spiritually relevant to them. So ex Roman Catholics may worship in the Roman Catholic Way...with only minor changes. So too with any other Liturgy or Worship Service. Many Types of Rose, yet one Species. As We have assimilated and founded communities around the world our Unity in Nazarani Faith, Liberty in Nonessentials and Love in All things has grown to include Mesianic Jews, Pentacostals, Charismatics, Catholics, Orthodox, Portestants and unbelievers of every class and culture. It may seem weird to go to a Pentacostal Church service which breaks out into a Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, but it happens daily. It may seem shocking to see those same Holy Rollers baptizing babies, children, Parents and Grandparents all at once......but as in Caesarea with Cornelius, it happens daily. We are about the promulgation of the Orthodox Nazarani Faith worldwide, nat about making rubber stamped and culturally fixated Churchites. Can you imagine a Pentacostal Bishop, Priest or Deacon? We got em, and to many in My Church I am such a priest and Bishop....I am just a Nazarani who seek His Master's Voice in the Call of the Holy Spirit.

As for the recovered Egyptian "Gospel of Thomas", it has never been in the Canon of NT Scripture.....although in ancient history many of our Assyrian Brethren had heard of it, but it was never generally spread around in the Far East....I have yet to hear of an Aramaic Copy found.

I own an English/Coptic Interlinier of the complete text of the Good News of Mar +Ehoda Thoma. I also own the Aramaic/English Interlinier of the Travels of Mar +Ehoda Thoma. Both works seem very mystical, and if read with NeoPlatonist eyes can seem to support Gnosticism. Being familiar with the major pagan & pseudo christian gnostic teachers and sects of the first millenium of the Christian era, I am not fully convinced that the Gospel of Thomas is a product of such. It is very semitic in it's mystical language and seems familiar with the synoptics, the johanine writings as well as early the Jewish Cabbala well established in Tiberius, Galilee after the Temple's Destruction in 70 AD. In the text Judas Thomas speaks concerning what Messiah had confided to him privately; something so profound that it might shock and anger the rest of the Disciples into violence against him should he repeat these three words to them. Now to may this smacks of gnostic teacher teaching secret doctrine to a disciple. Nonsense! Nicodemus himself met Christ in secret at night and spoke privately with Him concerning His Mission and the Kingdom.

Many have wondered what three words could freak out the Disciples enough to pummel poor Thomas for repeating them. It seems easy contextually speaking......Jesus told Thomas who He really was,"Ehyeh Ashar Ehyah." Which in English means: I AM Who I AM. Only Jehovah God can utter those words to self Identify....it would have blown away those 12 New Students who just previously where rough & rowdy Fishermen. There are other interresting statements in this short text ascribed to St. Judas Thomas. It seems idiomatically written by a Mystical Jewish Nazarani. It Calls Thomas by His full name, Judas Thomas.....so it could be an early Nazaraean work written originally in aramaic in Judea, Galilee or Idumaea. It was almost circulated among the Egyptian, Syrian, Judaean, Galilean, Idumaean, Asian and Assyrian Churches until the era when Coptic started to supplant Koine Greek in the Egyptian Church, around 375 AD. It was read and known of in the 4th & 5th Centuries AD within the Eastern Roman Empire, but not generally received. Our present text is a Coptic translation of a Koine Greek translation of an Aramaic Original, We do have a few scraps of this text in Koine Greek and in Latin I believe...but not in Aramaic.

There are in America many theosophical gnostic sects who now claim to be Thomasine Christians or even Saint Thomas Christians.We are well aware of these self proclaimed cults who use the Gospel of Thomas and other psuedopigraphal writings to support their Apostate and Heretical Beliefs and Practices...........they are not from us, nor do they have valid Apostolic Succession. In order to sit in Mar +Thoma's Episcopal Chair one must hold to, defend and accurately promulgate the Holy True and Apostlic Faith of Mar +Thoma untainted by addition, subtraction or innovation. This they cannot show...their orders are invalid and their sacraments are without grace. They have a form of Religion but not the power thereof.

They and all like them are anathema to us and we prohibit all within our Church to have any contact with them lest they too become poisoned and therefore receive an immediate exile from the Lord's Table and if persistent in their unlawful intercourse and heresy will be judged by the Church in accordance with Holy Scripture and if found guilty of the offenses charged they will be excommunicated from our Church Fellowship until the fruits of full repentance is apparent to all.

We in the synod of Bishops have sadly had to use such apostolic discipline for this very situation in the last few years. We do not tolerate Heresy within our Church, nor compromise with Apostates. We exercise the Keys of the Kingdom as shepherds duty bound to feed and protect the Master's Sheep from Wolves which hunt from without or who in sheepskin prowl with.

I hope my reply answers your questions.

In Messiah,
+Kenat'el

[Guest]

Hey Steve!!
Mia Culpa!!! Pardona Mai!!! I am truly sorry if my style seems much like Zorro slashing about as he gets becked into a corner by an out numering Federally Horde!! EeeeeeeeeeeeeeHolay! No Mas! I do not want either SD or U to feel attacked or that I feel attacked......I feel quit safe behind My Mac's Firewall... 8) I admit that I feel deeply about the topics we discuss....why discuss them if they are just chess pieces? But I never want any of you to think I consider you threats or spiritual enemies in need of a MOAB dropped atop you. Ain't that a picture?
I have been dealing with my own mortality and it's Catastrophic illness of late, so maybe my replies have been affected by them...if so forgive me....both of you. I am one sick (no jokes!!! ) Nazarani here, and except for God's Grace and Medical Science we would not be sharing right now. So if my thorn in the side has become a pain in your backside, please know it is not intended. I have been on Dialysis for 3 weeks, and have been out of the Hospital for less that two of those weeks. I have more surgery ahead and unless YHVH Yireh heals my Kidneys etc I will need to be on Dialysis for the rest of my life, or if a transplant can be done....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! Yikes.

I am on Sabbatical from Church duties temporarily, but soon hope to return to them. You know Steve, that though you and I have many points of disagreement I do not consider you a Heretic or Apostate....just an eclectic Hippy teacher fer Jesus! We share a common uneasiness for Augustine and his disciples Jean Calvin, Bishop Jansen, Beza and Knox etc.....we hate Tulips. We both where affected by the Jesus Movement...you became you because of it and I became who I am because of it...and we both fondly remember those heady Jesus Freak Days! I still am a Jesus Freak....just a Orthodox Nazarani Jesus Freak. Hey, we both shun Liver quiverism, shepherding, name it claim it kings kidism etc........so I hope we can look past the type, hype and denominational stripe and banter about positions like a tennis ball.....some times the swat is hard.
I am your friend,
+Kenat'el

[_Steve]

Thanks Ken,
I appreciated both of your last two posts. The information about the Eastern Church and the Gospel of Thomas was most informative and helpful.

I had not heard about your health problems, Bro. I am so sorry to hear of it! I am sure many of those who read these lines will be praying for your healing or the opportunity for a transplant. As I have said all along, I have learned a great deal of history from you over the years, and have always enjoyed your company. You will recall that I have mentioned you on the air as my "more informed source" on a number of things that people have asked me about. I pray the Lord sustains you for decades to come—without dialysis!

God bless you...

[Guest]

Axios Steve!!
Thank you for your prayers! I ahve tried to keep my problems to my self, unless they leak out into other areas and affect them...such as might be the case with my web postings. Sorry. But I do not wish to ever present myself like a fat Pharasee crying out aloud about how he suffers for personal piety and God...that sickens me like it does the Master. I struggle with my fleshly emotional ego which fears disability, discomfort, pain and death. I do not fear death, nor what I will meet with when God calls Me to His Throne for a Face to Face chat someday. My Rational (The Human Spirit of the Mind) immaterial side still cannot understand the logic of God calling me to His Service in the Church's Holy Orders only to hamper that Mission with severe chronic illness & disability. So one side wants to run and hide (Flesh), and the other side (Spirit) Trusts God and is Strong...yet it wants an answer like Job...so I war inside like Saint Paul said about himself...Steve, do I war inside! Sometimes I must restain myself when well meaning Christians who hold to certain UNBIBLICAL POSITIONS almost perfectly restate wll that Job's Friends said wrongly to him!! I mean, if you thing sometimes I seem a bit rough on the edges here.......Wow! You ain't seen nothing yet.
I was met by such a nice older Pentacostal at Saint Vincent's Catholic Hospital where I was for 1.5 weeks a bit ago. I went to the Chapel to see the Priest there, and was met by her. I wasn't reaaly ill, it was just a lack of Faith and demonic attack tricking my body, my PHysicians and their Million Dollar Technologies. All I had to do is Name it, claim it and retain it!! I also was confused about the Truth because I was a paganized Catholic. East, West, Oriental...all the same..not Pentacostal.
Well at first I just stood there weak and jaw dropping....I was reliving my Pentacostal past! It was biting me in the posterior! Then I noticed that she needed glasses and a cain like I do...so I asked her to practice what she preached and cast off her spectacles and crutch since she too was healed ny Christ's Stripes and was a Faith Warrior. Then she cocked her head, coughed, chin quivered...face reddened and she shouted "You are being stupid! I need these things!! I am old and my body is aging!!" I said, "SAME HERE , sister." I am just aging faster than you.We went around and around.....verse by verse. Then she said I had way too much head knowledge about the Scriptures and that was blinding my ability to actually understand them spiritually. I finally had it...I told her that I RESPECTED HER RIGHT TO HER HERESY, but not her prowling about in this Catholic Hospital for ill and dying patients so she could get her daily quota us faithless, unspirit filled and lost Catholics. I asked if she had business here with the Priest who is the Chapel Pastor and she said no....so I had her cast out of the Hospital and Banned from such self glorifying sheep hunting. I was so weakened after our encounter the security guards wanted to wheel chair me back up to my room. Nurses and a few Protestant Patients witnessed the whole thing...I was thanked for stopping this unauthorized activity in the Chapel and Hospital itself. They nick named me the roaring Bishop! LOL! So, steve if I seem testy about certain topics...I AM. Been there done that, will seek to denounce it any place, time or situation. You can tell I am not a quiet cleric...I feel My Faith as do you. I want those feelings to come out in my writing.
I love everyone...sinner & saint....but I do not tolerate foolishness, empty ritual or false doctrine by anyone. In Love I try to express Myself....that is my Motivation:Love and Salvation for Lost Souls. But that does not mean I will not use a whip, kick around a few tables, shout or oppose someone face to face boldly and without respect to their position, erudation, papers and affiliation. Love is a Motivation, not a Method in itself..............it can be expressed in gentleness, firmness, anger, roughness and even in violence if that is the only way left. Sampson was Motivated by the Love for God, Love for the Torah and Love For Israel when He committed suicide in which all the Philistine Leadership were also killed. God empowered Him to accomplish this last act of Love and Repentance. He was an Archetype of Messiah...who willingly took his own live in order to slay Israel's Oppressors and achieve Liberation for them. Messiah would incite the Jewish Leadership and Roman Government to either submit to His Gospel of the New Covenant and recognoze Him as Lord and God...thus abdicating their power....or force them to arrest, try and execute Him....For No one could take His Life except He willingly gave it up like Sampson of old.
I hope you and your readers can understand why I am a Black & White kind of person now and not only why, but how I have come to My Nazarani Faith. It is an Orthodox Eastern Catholic Faith....just not GraecoRoman.
In messiah,
Ken