For a long time in Christendom the answer was an unmistakeable "Yes!" If there weren't Christians in office, then the civil government was answerable to the Church. It's easy to point to Calvin's Geneva as a prime example of the Church running the State. It was fairly common. America started with it. It was a requirement in most places in the earliest days of America. I found this fascinating Article in the Delaware state constitution of 1776:
Art. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust ... shall ... make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."Yeah ... try that one on today. The point, however, is that the idea isn't as outlandish as you might wish to think.
Today, of course, this is an abhorrent idea to most. It is inconceivable to the secular society, obviously, but also to most Christians. And I have to ask, "Why?" I can see a lot of value in the concept. While our society -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- are horrified at the idea of outlawing adultery, of making sex outside of marriage a civil offense, of making homosexuality a capital crime, I have to wonder why. God made these rules. They were the laws He handed to Israel. Setting aside for the moment the question, "Are they still applicable today?", we Christians need to ask, "Was He right?" Many Christians are appalled at the prospect of any capital crime, any crime with the death penalty. But God prescribed it. What I'm asking here is on what basis you (those of you who call yourselves "Christians") would call God out as a faulty Lawgiver? Because if you argue that the death penalty is wrong or laws against adultery are wrong or some such, that's exactly the call -- God is a faulty Lawgiver.
Now, I do need to say that I'm not entirely on the theonomists' side. I can indeed see the logic in it and the value in it, but I'm not at all sure of the undertaking of it. Here, let me give a parallel to illustrate. The Early Church practiced what can only be described as communism. They shared all things in common. As such, I'd call it good. On the other hand, I would certainly not be in favor of a Communist government today. Why? Well, it's the humans, you see. We've demonstrated time and again that we can take a good idea and run it into the ground. In the same way, it is my suspicion that a nation like America run as a theocracy (with, necessarily, humans at the helm) wouldn't remain a biblical theocracy for long. While I believe that it would be good for America to have laws premised on biblical principles, I neither see it happening any time soon, nor, if it did, would I expect it to be done biblically. Nor would I see it solving the basic problem of sin and the need for salvation. At best it would make a "more moral" country.
I'm not, then, in favor of a theocracy for America. I will pray for such laws. I will vote for biblical principles. I see the theory as a decent one. I just don't see it as mandated by Scripture (no one seemed to be aiming to take over Rome or Greece or any of the New Testament world) and I don't see it as practical. But I'm tired of hearing folks who classify themselves as Christians saying that we should not have biblical laws. The insult is not to me or the theonomist or even the Bible. It's an insult to the Lawgiver who doesn't make mistakes.
23 comments:
Hey! I agree with your conclusion (although I disagree with your examples a bit). Trying to implement a Christian communism, a Christian pacifism, a Christian set of Sabbath laws, a Christian set of Jubilee laws, etc, would lead to chaos and violence by those not inclined to agree with My/Your/Wesley's/Calvin's/whoever's idea of those laws.
I certainly think God's ways - rightly understood - are the Right ways for all of us, I don't think I'm qualified enough to implement BY LAW those ways for everyone. And, no offense, but I certainly don't think those who'd make homosexuality, adultery or disrespectful children a capitol offense are qualified to do so, either.
You asked, "Today, of course, this is an abhorrent idea to most. It is inconceivable to the secular society, obviously, but also to most Christians. And I have to ask, "Why?"" and my answer to that question would be: Ask the anabaptists. Ask the huguenots. Ask the Catholics/Protestants or any group that has been burned at the stake for the crime of understanding God's ways differently than how those in power understand it.
Our main difference is that, in this world, I don't even begin to want to see humans trying to implement what they think "God's laws" are. We've had too long a history of too much horror coming from that. You seem to see the "logic and value" in it and I see none of it.
I see the value in following GOD'S ways, but humans have had too hard a time understanding God's ways for me to see any value in following SOME HUMAN interpretation of God's ways. No thanks.
Stan...
But I'm tired of hearing folks who classify themselves as Christians saying that we should not have biblical laws. The insult is not to me or the theonomist or even the Bible. It's an insult to the Lawgiver who doesn't make mistakes.
And for those of us who say, "We should not strive to implement biblical laws on every little notion found within the Bible because WE DON'T TRUST HUMAN INTERPRETATION TO GO THAT FAR..." who are we "insulting?" Isn't it an apt expression of not trusting HUMAN interpretation, rather than an insult to God?
That's how I see it.
Merry Christmas.
The whole idea of drawing our ideas of right and wrong, which when you get down to it is the bases of all laws, we seem to automatically fall into "rut think". But when we do this, I think a point is missed that was not in earlier times. This points to a couple of problems inherent in today's thinking:
a. We see man as basically good. With this thinking we can't imagine man, especially if that man is a government man, having anything but good intentions. We can see it all around us right? There is the "War On Poverty", Welfare, Societal Safety Net, etc., all pointing to the basic goodness of man as expressed by his government. The problem that is sorely missed is that all of these, and basically everything else a secular humanist government does is based on materialism; and by default denies the spiritual realm. By exchanging our reliance on God for reliance on man though his government, we miss the whole concept that, as some men happily take on that responsibility by confiscating the wealth of others, taking a nice chuck for themselves--which is OK we have to presume--then passing a pittance around, the more power over other men's life they obtain so that they in fact eventually take the place of God in that they institute arbitrary values. This of coarse is obvious in same sex marriage, a wholly arbitrary thing.
b. If Christians do as you do by praying and voting for a government that reflects Biblical principals as opposed to materialistic ones, then I think the flawed government of flawed man would better reflect a Holy and Righteous God. Of coarse there will always be those who parade the horrors of Theistic governments in response to this, but by doing so they only make my case in my first point; that is that man cannot be trusted with absolute power no matter the auspices under which the power is given. And even under this premise, if the objective reference point of God is lost, then even this thinking will fail. It all just simply fails once the compass of truth is discarded, there simply is no other option. History proves it, and our future will also prove it.
Dan T, I find your logic controvertible. If God's ways are the best ways, then I would think that the best way would be God's way. (I know ... silly me.) Nor do I think for a moment that God's ways are so imperiously mysterious as you seem to suggest (repeatedly), like they're just so hard to understand. That so many humans have misunderstood them repeatedly is simply confirmation that lots of people claim a relationship with God that they don't have and that Paul was right when he said that natural man lacked the ability to comprehend the things of God. In my experience and in my studies, it seems to me that for the most part there has been a continuous stream of commonly-held belief in God's ways among God's people and I'd be quite happy to stick to that if I could get it. But the repeated suggestion of so many that we don't want Christian values in secular law because they're just so hard to figure out makes that quite impossible, doesn't it? And my point was that the numbers of folk who claim "I'm a Christian with Christian values and I want to impose them on you" who are neither Christians nor possessors of Christian values makes it so I don't want.
And, in your view, they were oppressed for the crime of a different understanding of God's ways? Fascinating! Not true, but fascinating. I'm not suggesting that the oppressors were right, but I'm fairly certain that not one thought, "I'm going to kill you because we have a different take on a simple concept." I'm pretty sure that all true believers (I'm not talking about that second category of false believers) who did any such thing did it because they believed it was important to defend important truth, not over a simple disagreement on the meaning of a text.
Stan...
Nor do I think for a moment that God's ways are so imperiously mysterious as you seem to suggest (repeatedly), like they're just so hard to understand.
Well, I think, again, anabaptist and huguenot history tells us quite differently. I''m sure THEY didn't think that the ways of God were so mysterious right through to their torture and deaths burned at a stake.
"Anabaptists were fined, drowned, burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted in all the manners of the day for such crimes as refusal to pay tithes, re-fusal to attend church, refusal to refrain from Bible study groups in private homes, refusal to refrain from preaching, and other offences against the church-state."
source
The fact is that deeply devout Christian men who have tried to honor God by implementing "god's law" (as THEY saw it) have committed atrocities in the name of God nearly WAY too often to think that the idea of humans trying to implement "All of God's law" (again, as THEY understand it) is anything but a horrible horrible idea.
So, when you say,
"they were oppressed for the crime of a different understanding of God's ways? Fascinating! Not true, but fascinating."
...I wonder what examples you're thinking of or what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that believers who have been tortured and killed by religious folk in power were NOT oppressed for the crime of a different understanding of God's ways?
Stan...
I'm not suggesting that the oppressors were right, but I'm fairly certain that not one thought, "I'm going to kill you because we have a different take on a simple concept." I'm pretty sure that all true believers (I'm not talking about that second category of false believers) who did any such thing did it because they believed it was important to defend important truth, not over a simple disagreement on the meaning of a text.
Why do you think, for instance, John Calvin supported torturing/killing anabaptists and catholics?
A source for some information on the topic, if you're not familiar.
Would you mind clarifying what exactly you're saying?
Are you saying that those religious folk in power who DID engage in persecution did so with a good, clean conscience, only seeking to defend the faith from those with whom they had "significant" differences in matters of orthodoxy?
Are you saying that those religious folk in power who engaged in persecution were not truly Christians (possibly) and thus were wrongly persecuting?
Or some other angle?
To me, any either case, I think it is a good argument for NOT having Christians ("true" or "false" Christians) in power deciding (by weight of law and threat of sword) orthodoxy for all the society.
Thanks.
Stan: "Nor do I think for a moment that God's ways are so imperiously mysterious as you seem to suggest (repeatedly), like they're just so hard to understand."
Dan T: "Well, I think, again, anabaptist and huguenot history tells us quite differently."
Well, another mystery cleared up. The reason you and I are so far apart in our theology is that I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture ("perspicuity", a circuitous word meaning "plain to the understanding" -- isn't it ironic?) and you believe that God's ways are imperiously mysterious.
Now, having established that difference of perspective between us, let me ask you this. Why do you bother disagreeing with me on matters of biblical perspective? On what grounds can you argue that I'm wrong when Scripture is so very hard to figure out?
As for the rest, you missed the point (again). Yes, indeed, bad things have been done in the name of God. This would have you siding with the anti-Christian who points to the Crusades and says, "See?!! Christianity is an evil, violent religion!" To which I would respond, "Just because it is done in the name of God doesn't make it God's way." What I said was that I was talking about "true believers", that there are, without a doubt, atrocities committed in the name of Christ by false believers. Unfortunately, I said it in short form due to the media.
Since short form doesn't work for you and Blogger limits the number of words I can use (which likely explains why I'm getting a 2:1 ration here for things you write versus things I write), I suppose there's no point in continuing this conversation. You will go on to think that the only reason that anabaptists or heretics were killed was because they simply held a different view and it was only the fact that one view was in power that brought about the result. Fine. You go with that. Calvin believed that sound doctrine was important. You think it is an individual thing. And the term "orthodoxy", like "marriage", loses its meaning.
There's one thing we have going in this country that would make implementation of Biblical principles work, or be likely to work: our method of governance. Our gov't was formed under the assumption that we are not angels nor could we be governed by them. We are men, fallen creatures in a fallen world. Thus, the founders created a gov't of self-monitoring bodies, exec., legislative and judicial branches, and within the whole process is the people themselves, who form into groups as their principles so divided them and they hash it out and then vote according to the most persuasive arguments.
Now, imagine, as has been encouraged by so many of our founding fathers, that each of us do our own duty to learn and understand Biblical principles. Imagine that we take great pains to make sure those we elect are also students of Biblical truth. The idea was that we'd be as sound in our study as possible, living our lives as Christians so that our form of government would operate properly. It was formed for such a people, not a secular people. Secular gov't, yes. Secular people, no.
Within such a governed nation, God's will should be easy to implement and sustain because the more one puts God first, the less we'd find the faulty understanding so prevalent amongst today's "progressive" Christians and secular people. Truth would win out more often than not and debates over such things as DADT would never take place because people would govern their own actions to avoid the sinfulness of such behavior, AND, they'd be supported and guided by the rest.
A true Christian people would need fewer man-made laws, would need fewer regulations and would need fewer governmental compulsions to support the fewer people impoverished by what few remaining circumstances such a nation might still generate to so bring people to that sorry state.
As to the gov't itself, though only Christians would be elected, as no other would be seen as worthy in most cases, we wouldn't be seeing a gov't that compels religious beliefs, but only one that allows a righteous people to live their lives, while providing just rewards for those who run afoul of what few laws a civil society needs.
The one fly in this ointment are the Dan T's of the world who willingly twist plainly revealed teaching to enable bad behavior while claiming to be committed to serious study of His Will.
Stan...
The reason you and I are so far apart in our theology is that I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture ("perspicuity", a circuitous word meaning "plain to the understanding" -- isn't it ironic?) and you believe that God's ways are imperiously mysterious.
You have misunderstood my position. I DON'T think God's ways are imperiously mysterious. It's just that I don't trust your (or Marshall's or Obama's or Billy Graham's or Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell's) interpretation of God's word enough to let you implement your idea. I think it is abundantly clear that we are to live simple lives of grace and love, peacefully sharing God's world with one another, by God's grace. But not everyone agrees with my interpretation.
The point is, NOT that I think God's teaching are impossibly mysterious or that the Bible is impossible to understand, the point is that I DON'T TRUST A FALLEN humanity to rightly understand an omniscient God. The point is NOT a lack of clarity on God's part, it is the fallibility on my part (on your part, on all our parts). Because we are fallible fallen creation, I don't want to see humans try to implement their interpretation of God's ways. We've seen over and over how that can go wrong.
Stan...
What I said was that I was talking about "true believers", that there are, without a doubt, atrocities committed in the name of Christ by false believers.
So are you saying that Calvin the persecutor and killer of anabaptists and catholics was not a "true believer?" Any chance of getting an answer to this question?
Are you wanting to cut this conversation off because you just don't have the time to answer my questions and understand my position (which apparently you don't)? I fully understand that a lack of time can make conversation difficult, especially when two (or more) folk are having a hard time grasping one another's position so if that's the case, that's okay.
But otherwise, I really wish you could try to answer the question(s) I've asked.
Do you know why anabaptists were persecuted?
Do you know what "heresies" they were accused of?
Do you think that those who thusly accused them were "true believers" and the anabaptists were false believers deserving of persecution?
Those sorts of questions. I think it would help me and others out there to better understand your position if you could clarify. Thanks.
Merry Christmas!
tan...
What I said was that I was talking about "true believers", that there are, without a doubt, atrocities committed in the name of Christ by false believers.
So are you saying that Calvin the persecutor and killer of anabaptists and catholics was not a "true believer?" Any chance of getting an answer to this question?
Are you wanting to cut this conversation off because you just don't have the time to answer my questions and understand my position (which apparently you don't)? I fully understand that a lack of time can make conversation difficult, especially when two (or more) folk are having a hard time grasping one another's position - so if that's the case, that's okay.
But otherwise, I really wish you could try to answer the question(s) I've asked.
Do you know why anabaptists were persecuted?
Do you know what "heresies" they were accused of?
Do you think that those who thusly accused them were "true believers" and the anabaptists were false believers deserving of persecution?
Those sorts of questions. I think it would help me and others out there to better understand your position if you could clarify. Thanks.
Merry Christmas!
Marshall...
The one fly in this ointment are the Dan T's of the world who willingly twist plainly revealed teaching to enable bad behavior while claiming to be committed to serious study of His Will.
As is obvious to anyone who knows me or who has read what I've written (at least those without an agenda or an axe to grind), this is a flat-out falsehood. Could I be WRONG about any of my positions? Sure, I'm human. I, Stan, Marshall and all of us are capable of being wrong.
But "willingly twist plain scripture"? No. Never have I done that. For all my faults and sins, I've never willingly twisted the Bible's words.
Just to set the record straight.
But this does get to the point: Marshall will always disagree with some of my interpretations of God's Word. I will disagree with Marshall's. We'll all disagree with one another at some point. So, which of us should be elected and implement OUR INTERPRETATION of God's "laws"? Shall I be elected and promptly implement the Jubilee law as is "plainly" recorded in the Bible to be God's law and part of the reason that Jesus Christ himself said he had come? ("I've come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick... declare the year of God's good favor") Shall Marshall get elected and outlaw homosexuality? And for those Marshall finds guilty, shall we put gay folk to death? Really? You think that has ANY THING AT ALL to do with the will of God?
THIS is why we ought not have the hubris to try to implement by law OUR IDEAS of what God wants on each and every point. THIS is why we should limit laws to that which causes harm. Because some righteous folk would TORTURE AND KILL anabaptists, gays, Catholics, the wrong type of Baptists, Jews, etc, etc. Trying by human hands to forcibly implement Heaven has always resulted in Hellish behavior.
Perhaps if I were king, I'd criminalize the sort of false witness and slander that Marshall just engaged in, since "clearly" it is contrary to God's Word.
Wait, wait ... I have misunderstood your position?
In the comment where I "misunderstood" your position I quoted both of us. I said that you seem to suggest that God's ways are so imperiously mysterious that they're too hard to understand and you said, "I think that history tells us quite differently". I said "A" and you said "A is not so". Further, it has always been your position that while Scripture (for instance, on the subject of homosexual behavior) has been abundantly clear for thousands of years, it is only now that a small group of people have come up with the true meaning of the texts and the plain meaning (because even its opponents admit what the text plainly says) is not the actual meaning. In other words, it's not very easy to understand. You have to, in fact, know "epic" language and a whole lot that, quite frankly, your average reader simply cannot know. My simplistic "the text says x so it means x" is just too ... idiotic.
No, I didn't say that Calvin was a false believer. Nor did I suggest that persecution was a good thing. What I said was that it wasn't a simple "difference of opinion." Check your own sources. It was heresy. Look, people of good will in the Church of their day disagreed on all sorts of stuff. There were all sorts of differences. Is the Eucharist the literal blood and body of Christ or is it spiritual? Does baptism actually save or is it representative? Does regeneration precede faith or follow it? On and on. In-house debates about issues. But no one was killed for those things. Servitus was killed for heresy, not "a difference of opinion". And simply misrepresenting the event, as bad as you and I think it was, as that is a worse misrepresentation of anything I've done with your views.
It does, on the other hand, show the primary difference between your view and mine on the subject at hand. I think that the truth can be known. I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us into truth, and that He has always done so, that it didn't take Him 2000 years to finally get someone to hear Him on this whole insane homosexual thing, and, most importantly, it's important enough to take a stand. Your view baffles me. You suggest repeatedly, boldly, loudly that we're human and fallible and can't know the truth for sure and yet you continue to argue with me about what the truth is. You say that it's wrong for separating over "differences of opinion" and then argue with me because your opinion is different from mine and you're right and I'm not. That is why I'm intending to cut off this conversation. Your hardline stance for the sanctity of differing views while you argue different views makes no sense to me, offers no value to me, and becomes pointless very quickly.
Stan...
I have misunderstood your position?
Yes.
Stan...
In the comment where I "misunderstood" your position I quoted both of us.
Here's what you said MY position was...
you believe that God's ways are imperiously mysterious.
That is not a quote from me. That is not my position. You can tell because I haven't said that.
What I had said was...
I''m sure THEY didn't think that the ways of God were so mysterious right through to their torture and deaths burned at a stake.
"THEY DIDN'T THINK THE WAYS OF GOD WERE MYSTERIOUS." "DIDN'T." "DID NOT."
They considered the ways of God clear enough to them. My point was that it was NOT clear to others, though, because the others tortured and killed them, wholly missing the point of Christian teachings.
Do you get what I'm saying? NOT that God's ways are mysterious, but that many people don't understand them, just the same. And BECAUSE many people don't understand the ways of God, I don't want human authorities to be in the business of codifying by law any and every little thing THEY THINK is "God's Way."
In other words, I think God's ways are clear AND I think people nonetheless miss the clear point regularly anyway. Including Christians, who proceed to torture and kill other Christians because of disagreements about orthodoxy.
I have always thought that a true theocracy would be the best government, and that true communism would be the ideal way to live, both of which seem rather Biblical. But like you I see that the implementation of both would be impossible because of the fallen nature of Man. History has proven that we are incapable of sustaining these ideals. Israel was originally a theocracy when they came out of Egypt. But they couldn't stand being under that rulership, so they begged for a king. The communist Christians in the early church could only last as long as the Christians were willing to live that way. Once there became people wanting power or wealth over others, the communism failed. In the world as it is, theocracy and communism can only work in small groups for short times, like the early Christians did. They lived communally, but they also obeyed the laws of the land. I believe that when heaven comes to earth and God reigns undisputed, we will see a true theocracy and real, loving communism.
I'm sorry, Dan. I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough. When I said I was cutting off this conversation, I meant that I was cutting off this conversation. I let you "clarify", but we're done. Thus, I'm not posting the rest of your arguments on orthopraxy and Calvin.
David...
n the world as it is, theocracy and communism can only work in small groups for short times, like the early Christians did.
I might point out that the Hutterites, some Mennonites and Amish and others have lived a rather communistic life for hundreds of years. I agree, though, that it tends only to work in those rather small groups with a common agreement to do so.
Stan, I'll try to take up the problems with your ideas about the anabaptists and others who have been oppressed by religious/political types in power at my blog, because the problems are many and horrifying and obvious.
But since, as I stated at the beginning, we mostly agree that theocracy can't work NOT because God's ways aren't best, but because of the fallen nature of humanity, so I don't really see why you seem to be defending what you have agreed doesn't work...
Please, Dan, by all means, take it up on your blog. Please keep in mind that if you are suggesting that I think that persecution of anabaptists was a good idea, you have, as usual, misunderstood, and any suggestion of that sort will be a misrepresentation, something akin to the unpardonable sin. And, please note that, as you indicated, fallen humanity has always been my problem with theonomy, so any conclusion on your part that I was defending it for our society was, again, a misunderstanding on your part and a misrepresentation of what I was saying. This is, in fact, the reason I've terminated this discussion. No progress toward understanding, let alone agreement. So, when you take on either concept (persecution or theonomy), please rest assured that you will be misrepresenting my view when you do.
"Shall Marshall get elected and outlaw homosexuality? And for those Marshall finds guilty, shall we put gay folk to death? Really? You think that has ANY THING AT ALL to do with the will of God?"
Talk about misrepresentation! Wow! For the record (not for Stan, but those who read his blog without commenting, as well as for the dishonest Dan T, who knows better but pretends otherwise), I have never called for the outlawing of homosexuality or the behavior that indicates its existence. Nor have I ever suggested that I would advocate for the execution of those sorry individuals who are so enamored with their sexual depravities that they would seek to compel all the world to accept and tolerate their perversion. No. Never. I have merely stood for truth and honesty and of course, the only real arrangement of humans that qualifies under the term "marriage". I oppose attempts to place special rights for homosexual into law.
More importantly, for the sake of my previous comment and the point of the post, a land where people seek God's Will and thus the land is ruled by laws that naturally flow from the righteous understanding of that Will, would naturally have fewer people engaging in sexual behaviors forbidden by God so that laws prohibiting them would be unnecessary, and those who suffer from compulsions to engage in such behaviors would find plenty of help in standing firmly against them and living a more righteous Christian life.
Carry on.
Marshall...
For the record (not for Stan, but those who read his blog without commenting, as well as for the dishonest Dan T, who knows better but pretends otherwise), I have never called for the outlawing of homosexuality or the behavior that indicates its existence.
Sigh. I was just throwing out examples, not suggesting you would personally advocate that. My apologies for using your name for an example.
Stan...
Please keep in mind that if you are suggesting that I think that persecution of anabaptists was a good idea, you have, as usual, misunderstood
No, no, I wasn't suggesting that you were saying it was a good thing. I was saying that I did not understand your position and would love for you to explain it a bit. IF you agree that persecuting the anabaptists was a horrible thing, then why do you appear to be defending their oppressors? Why would you defend the system that would allow such behavior and suggest that it might be sorta good?
Those sorts of questions are what I'm striving to understand.
I said, "I'm not suggesting that the oppressors were right."
I said, "Yes, indeed, bad things have been done in the name of God."
I said, "Nor did I suggest that persecution was a good thing."
I said, "as bad as you and I think it was"
The difference was, is, continues to be, will always be on the fact that I think orthdoxy is important and can be found and you are certain that I'm wrong. I never defended persecution. I was pointing out that it wasn't a mere difference of viewpoints, that lots of "mere difference of viewpoints" existed and were tolerated. I said it multiple times in multiple ways trying to explain it as fully as I knew how and you still think I was defending persecution. Why are we still talking?
I do not, am not, will not defend persecuting people for being wrong. Some in the Church feared that letting heresy go unchecked would lead others astray. I suspect it's true, but I still don't defend the response. I never have. (Note, by the way, that not all are in agreement about why the anabaptists were persecuted. There are several references to violent anabaptists that stirred up the whole problem. The suggestion that they were a quiet group of separatists who just wanted to believe what they want and be left alone isn't entirely accurate.)
Sorry, Dan. I guess you don't understand "Stop!" And my over-developed sense of courtesy and the need to defend the faith keep me responding. So I'm not posting any further of your comments because there has been not the slightest flicker of understanding my point or view and you can't seem to stop talking.
Post a Comment