01/18/20 IT IS CHRIST, NOT CONSTANTINE

01/18/20 IT IS CHRIST, NOT CONSTANTINE

Sad how Christians with Constantinian beliefs reject or denounce believers who hold to a New Testament faith. Won't even consider.

ONE OF MY FB FRIENDS ASKED:
That is interesting. Is there an example of this you have encountered recently?

 DLG RESPONDED:
Yes sir. In fact, all the time. The New Testament view concerning Christians and violence is clear. And that view was predominant for the first three hundred years of the Church.

However, with the corrupting of the Church under the influence of Constantine, violence, killing became the accepted position of Christendom, which is not a surprise since Constantine and his pagan masses flooded the Church of the day, with the supremacy of the State and pagan religion that masqueraded as Christian churches.

This set the tone for the rise of the Roman religion and it carried over into the Reformation movement, which was then passed along to other descenting groups. This Constantinian view predominates the Roman, Reformationist and most Evangelical churches of the west.

However, the Constantinian view is in stark contrast with the New Testament view and the view of the earliest believers. I don't unChristianize other folks for differing on this issue. I believe they have been mislead. However, the New Testament has a standard that is not accepted by those who accept post New Testament teaching.

Those who argue for Christian violence or Christian killing (whether in self defense or family defense or or church defense or community defense or national defense) must reject New Testament teaching of Christ and the Apostles and accept the teachings of paganized Christianity, from Constantine.

* The N.T. forbids violence and killing.
* There is nowhere in the N.T. that Christians are commanded to kill.
* There is nowhere in the N.T. that Christians are commended for killing.
* There is nowhere in the N.T. that Christians are permitted to kill.
* There is nowhere in the N.T. that Christians killed or were violent.
The only place in the N.T. that we read about a follower of Christ being violent was Peter, which was before Calvary and even then Jesus reproved Peter and healed the wounded person.

Throughout history, Bible followers have recognized the standard of non-violence and practiced non-violence, when their own lives were threatened, their families were threatened, their churches were threatened, their communities were threatened or their nation was threatened.

Remember, this is not about the social practice of Pacifism. This is about Christ followers, Bible believers not using deadly force on anyone, though the Bible does give the authority and sword to the State to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. The N.T. gives the responsibility for social peace and criminal punishment to the State, not the Church.

Simply bringing this subject up with Christians is a definite way to get negative reaction, human traditions, Old Testament arguments, religious jargon and cultural standards, while the N.T. is either ignored or twisted to accommodate a violent, Constantinian, Roman, Reformationist, Westernized form of Christianity. In all of the arguments, the starred (*) points above are never disproved.

Then, those who hold to a Constantinian rather than a N.T. form of Christianity will often resist, reject, denounce and turn against Christians who follow the N.T. in peacemaking. Peacemakers will be called Anti-American, unpatriotic, cowardly and cultic.

ANOTHER FB FRIEND COMMENTED:
Can you imagine how weird it would be for Christian foreign missionaries to massacre people in villages who become violent towards them???
That goes against everything the world even sees as normal Christian behavior. Because it doesn't make sense. Because it isn't Biblical.

ANOTHER FB FRIEND TEXTED ME A QUESTION:
Hey, hope you are doing well. After reading your comments on biblical pacifism I do have one questin, not inferring that I disagree but with that strong conviction you hold, what would the biblical reaction of a woman being raped be?

DLG RESPONDED:
Believing in Biblical Peacemaking (non-violence) does not mean passive acquiescence. God provides various responses to danger. non lethal or non violent resistance is a possibility. There is flight, there is pleading the Blood (which actually has been effective). I know someone who was targeted by a murderer, rapist, but the potential victim stood their ground, facing a weapon and shared Christ with the perpetrator. The facts were verified by law enforcement.

Sadly, sometimes nonviolent recourse does not avail. But then again, many times violent recourse does not avail for the victim and often the use of violence as a defensive option backfires on the innocent person.

There is no pat answer. Obviously resistance to rape is reasonable. The question that the victim or victim's companion must answer is, what kind of resistance.

It is essential that Christians be prayed up at all times, that Christians make wise choices. But this does not insure safety. There are thousands of women and children who have been raped by vile and vicious men, around the world, by madmen of other religions.

I realize this is very sketch. If I can be clearer, please let me know and I will try.

Basically, being "non-violent" does not mean that we simply let evil prevail. We can, and should, seek to thwart evil, as God gives us opportunity, without resorting to violent, lethal force.