Who is Right? Catholics and Orthodox? Protestants? Someone Else? - Lynn Martin

Today I'm going to be talking about who is right. Um, for a number of years I've been looking at the beliefs of different Christian groups, um, like the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and tried to evaluate their arguments for why they believe what they believe, and as well as thinking through, you know, why I believe the way I believe.

So today, if you look pretty much anywhere online or in print, you'll see Roman Catholics arguing against Protestants and Protestants arguing against Roman Catholics, um, which they've been responding to each other for for a long time, and they've been very good at responding to each other so that they both know what their position is, and they are also—many people are unaware that there are other options besides Roman Catholic and Protestant.

And I think that very few people are aware that today there's a third option, there's a third way other than the Catholic way or Catholic and Orthodox way, because they're very similar churches in some ways, um, and the Protestant way. And I think few Christians realize that, um, many churches have been keeping alive the original faith that the apostles taught. Um, but my question is, how are Christians supposed to know about the third way, which I'm going to call the Anabaptist faith today? For the most part, Anabaptist churches aren't, um, creating books, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc., that are aimed toward other Christians to help them understand why—why we're Anabaptist and what our reasons are for Anabaptism.

And I think that's a problem because we're not really doing anybody any good if we're not entering the conversation, because if we—I mean, we're Anabaptists because we believe that's how we should be, but if we're not willing to to present that to other people, we're not actually—we're not being helpful to them or to us. And I think we should be more—more able to give reasons for our faith and understand our faith better, not because we're special, um, but because everybody is special, and because if we think our faith is true, then other people should be hearing that faith. So I don't want to—so today I'm going to be arguing for the Anabaptist faith, um, giving reasons for that faith, but I don't want to be presenting those reasons as—as though we have arrived at some—at something beyond what anybody else has—has—has seen, but as I want to offer this as a truth that I think all Christians should know.

And I don't want to judge, for example, who is Christian and who isn't Christian, because I believe there are many, many Christians out there who aren't Anabaptists, and I respect them for their faith, but I think the Anabaptist faith has a lot to offer them. So that's why I'm presenting this, um, sermon today.

So I'm going to first need to define Anabaptism, um, because it can be used a lot of different ways. Um, it can be used for—for people groups and church groups that have—uh, that originated from the Anabaptist movement, um, but I'm going to broaden that term this morning and be using that term as a—as shorthand for a specific view of the Christian faith.

So I'm going to—by Anabaptist, I'm going to use that term to mean those who believe that obedience to Jesus and the apostles' commands is essential to the Christian faith, and not as a—not to refer to a specific church.

Um, and this—this is a broad definition. If I had more time, I could try to define it more deeply, but I guess this whole sermon is—is going to turn out to be, in a way, a definition of that faith.

So I'm calling it Anabaptist because, um, that's the name of the historical movement that convinced a lot of people to return to this kind of faith, and because a lot of churches that belong to the Anabaptist movement today have—have remained true to that belief. So before I get into the arguments, I'd like to stress the fact that we don't need to come to our faith in Christ or our—um—or our belief in Anabaptism because of arguments or because of specific, um, philosophical or theological reasons.

I think God reveals himself through—um—to us through the Holy Spirit in a lot of different ways, but I think that it's also—that it's good for Christians to understand the arguments for their faith, and because, for one, I think we should be open to evaluating our beliefs and make sure there's good evidence for them.

I also think that apologetics or understanding the reasons why we believe can help us understand—can help us know God better and better understand our relation with him—relationship with him, and that apologetics can help us overcome doubts and can help non-believers come to faith in Christ.

And finally, I'd really like to receive feedback on this, so I'd be very glad to hear what people have to say.

So first, I'm going to present, um, an argument on doctrinal authority, which, um, in English is, who do we listen to? How do we know what the faith is, and can it ever be changed?

So I'm going to begin by arguing that the teachings of Jesus' apostles, which are found in the New Testament, are our infallible authority for Christian doctrine. The books that make up our New Testament accurately contain the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and other people who faithfully represented their teachings. So that's the second point here. This fact is actually not under dispute by any of the group—any of the groups that I'm critiquing this morning, um, and in fact, it's not ever been under dispute by Christians in general. I mean, there are Christians who—who, um, don't—who don't think this, but pretty much I'm not responding to them in particularly. And our New Testament has contained books that not all Christians were sure of were by apostles, but all Christians have agreed that the most significant New Testament books, such as the four Gospels, were written by apostles or other people who knew them.

And in fact, more and more scholars today, either religious or secular, are coming to—to agree with this claim that, um, the New Testament books, at least, um, there's plenty of agreement that at least the Gospels and quite a few other of the books were written by apostles or people who knew apostles.

And we can also know that the New Testament books that we read today are the actual texts of the original books, with possible slight wording differences here and there. Through textual criticism, we can tell that none of the major Greek texts in use today in Bible translation, whether it's the Textus Receptus or the Critical Text or the Majority Text, um, differs in really any substantial way from the original texts that the New Testament authors wrote. Like, there aren't any doctrines that are affected by differences between, um, scripture texts that are—that are used to translate the scriptures.

So we have good reason to believe that we have the actual text of the New Testament and that the New Testament books accurately depict the teachings of the apostles. So on that—um, on that point, I'm going to build an argument for the Anabaptist view of scripture. Now, before I address that, I want to look at a question that comes up sometimes.

Um, Roman Catholics often argue that their church councils decided what books were part of the New Testament canon, and so they argue that the Roman Catholic Church has authority over the scriptures. Now, my argument in this essay doesn't rely on the New Testament canon. I'm not going to be arguing that just because the books are in the—are in the New Testament canon that they're authoritative.

Um, I think a better question is, did the Roman Catholic Church determine what doctrines were apostolic? Because I'm going to be arguing for—for the apostolic teaching, um, as our authority for our doctrines. And the fact is that all of Jesus' written teachings and most of the apostles' written teachings can be found in the books that were never disputed at all, and therefore never really needed an official canonization, and the books that were less certain can be used to further support their teachings.

So I don't think that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, um, determined what doctrines were apostolic, and here are three reasons why.

Um, the—like I said, the main New Testament books were always considered authoritative by Christians long before the canon was decided. Um, there weren't books proposed for—for canonization, as far as I know, um, by Christian leaders that contradicted any apostolic teachings. And that means that before the canon was ever formed, the church knew what the apostolic teachings were.

They didn't need the—the councils and the canonization to teach them what the apostolic teachings were. They knew that already. And finally, the basis for the canonization of the New Testament was on whether the book was apostolic or not, whether it was written by an apostle or—or written by somebody who associated closely with the apostles. And the canonization process didn't decide what doctrines were true. In fact, books were accepted based on the previous evidence on whether—as to whether they were written by apostles or those who were teaching under the apostles.

And as far as I know, all scholars, whether they're Roman, Catholic, Protestant, or secular, agree with these three points. Um, if—if that's not true, I'd be glad to be corrected. Um, but I think we can conclude that the Roman Catholic Church did not determine which doctrines were apostolic.

So I'm going to proceed to argue without depending on the canonization process that Christian doctrines and practices are defined by the apostolic teachings found in the New Testament, and that these teachings can't be changed.

So first of all, I'll start with Jesus' words on doctrinal authority. So that comes up most clearly in John 16, and Jesus said this to his 11 faithful apostles, um, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears, he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

So this passage is often interpreted to apply to all Christians, that the Spirit will guide us all into all the truth, but Jesus didn't actually say it to all Christians or all his disciples. He said these words to the 11 apostles who were with him in the upper room after Judas had left to betray him.

So in other words, he told these specific men that the Spirit would guide them into all the truth.

After his resurrection, Jesus entrusted these same apostles to teach his message. He commissioned them to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. That's Matthew from Matthew 28. He also told them to wait in Jerusalem until they had received the Holy Spirit.

And finally, on Pentecost, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and began to teach.

So my question is, just how much value did their teaching have in the first years of their—of their ministry? Well, here's what Paul tells the Galatians. He wrote this letter somewhere around AD 50, which is within 30 years of Pentecost. He said, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel. Not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, now I say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

So less than 30 years after the apostles first preached the gospel, Paul says that not even the apostles could change the gospel with new revelation. So the gospel that was preached in those first years is the one and only gospel of Christianity.

But what if it's just the gospel that didn't change? How do we know that other teachings might—might not have changed since then? So let's take a look at what Paul says about the church traditions. Um, Jesus and Paul both spoke against traditions of man, but the apostles also taught traditions as instructions for Christian practice.

Um, Paul says, "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions," or that word can be translated "ordinances" or "instructions," "precepts," "even as I delivered them to you." In this case, he's talking about the Christian women's head covering as one of the apostolic traditions. That's not necessarily the only one I think he's referring to, but that's the one he mentioned specifically. And other traditions can be found throughout the New Testament books.

He also says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." He's telling them to hold to these traditions and not to change them, which implies that the apostolic traditions or instructions that he gave could not be changed.

And Paul, or whoever else might have written Hebrews, also implies that these doctrines were for all time when he said, "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods."

So these Christians that he's writing to were to imitate their leaders who had told them the word of God and not to follow other teachings. Within this exhortation, Paul, or whoever wrote Hebrews, asserts that Jesus Christ himself never changes. This fact seems to imply, um, to him that Christian teachings could never be changed.

The apostle Peter also admonished Christians to keep what they already had. He reminded them of the importance of faith, knowledge, steadfastness, and other virtues, saying, "Therefore, I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I will make every effort so that after my departure, you may be able at any time to recall these things."

So Peter told his readers that they were already established in the truth. They already had what he had been commissioned to pass on to them. However, he was writing to them again so that they would continue to recall and live out what they had already been taught.

Jude also wrote to the church to remind them to hold fast to what they were given in the beginning. He said, "I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

So Jude realized that Christians needed to be warned against moving away from their faith. And like the other writers, he doesn't suggest that that only part of the faith had been revealed. In fact, he says that the faith had been delivered once for all.

So in conclusion, Jesus and the apostles offered no reason to think that any further church leaders would be needed in order to develop or clarify Christian doctrines. And in fact, these scriptures that I cited suggest the very opposite.

And remember that Jesus told the 11 faithful apostles that the Spirit would guide them into all the truth, speaking to them what Jesus wished he could say to them. So I think we can conclude that no further defining of doctrine is needed beyond what the apostles gave, because the Spirit had revealed all Christian teachings to the apostles in their lifetime.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that nothing else can be—can ever be said. Um, this means that church councils and later teachings, um, can only offer helpful—like a helpful perspective on the original faith. Um, they can't be considered infallible definitions or pronouncements on the faith. And today, church leaders have authority to teach and, in so doing, help their people to better understand the faith. However, their clarifications don't have the authority to define Christian doctrine or practice.

Um, the apostles have already defined the Christian faith by spoken word or by letter, as Paul said, and they gave us one faith that was intended for all Christians throughout all time until the end of the age. And this faith can be found in the New—in the New Testament, in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Now, God has revealed further truths to some people, and this doesn't mean that there aren't any more true things to be said, as I said, or further revelations to come. And we should spend our lives learning more about God. And God has revealed truths to people like the apostle John and others.

These arguments just show—this argument just shows that the further truths that God reveals won't affect doctrine or practice, any doctrines or practices necessary to Christianity. Our doctrines and practices have never changed from the faith that the apostles first proclaimed.

So now, is all apostolic teaching found in scripture? I said earlier that the apostles already defined the Christian faith by their spoken words or letters. But what if the apostles said or wrote something that's not recorded in the New Testament? Might there be other sources, other authoritative sources for Christian doctrine?

Now, the only way we could know this, know that there are other sources for Christian doctrine, would be, um, if the writings—if this was written—if this was witnessed in the writings of someone who heard it from an apostle. But as far as I know, for the first two or three hundred years of the church, Christian leaders didn't mention any doctrines or practices that the church considered necessary, except the ones that were found in scripture.

And I really recommend, um, if you don't want to read the entire Antonicene Fathers set, um, which some of us here have read—I haven't, just so you know—um, you can find a lot of this information on thehistoricfaith.com. Definitely recommend that.

Um, so in fact, the writings of the early Christian leaders are a valuable historical reference because they show us that for hundreds of years, the church believed that the faith could not be changed. These Christians faithfully lived out what the apostles had first taught them, whether by spoken word or by letter.

And therefore, from the apostolic writings and from the early Christians, we can conclude that the apostles never handed further—handed future church leaders the authority to make infallible pronouncements on the faith. What they delivered to us in their writings in scripture is what, um, oh, and here's my recommendation. What they delivered to us is—is in the New Testament and has authority.

So the apostles were given by Jesus authority to teach the Christian faith. And whatever they taught the churches in the first century is what we should still believe and practice today. Their teachings can be found in the books that were, um, later compiled into the New Testament, which contains books written by the original 12 apostles, or some of them by later apostles like Paul and by other apostolic men like James and Jude.

And just as Jesus himself trusted the apostles to teach the faith, we can trust the apostolic writings to contain the true faith. Scripture has full authority over us because it contains the teachings of the true faith by those whom God has given full authority to teach.

And this conclusion shores up the central tenet of the Anabaptist faith, which holds that Jesus' message in the scriptures is our authoritative source for doctrine today.

So, um, what does that mean for Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? So these churches hold that Jesus invested the church with continuing authority to define doctrines and make new pronouncements on how Christians should live. And they teach that the church, by which they mean the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, is the only source for true teachings.

They believe the scriptures derive their authority from that of the church, which gains its continuing doctrinal authority from the apostles.

However, scripture clearly shows that, so though scripture shows that, um, Jesus and the apostles gave some authority to the churches, certain forms of authority, um, the letters of the apostles contain their authority already. And the apostolic doctrines and practices do not change. So other Christian teachings can't be infallible beyond what we have from the apostles.

So if a church ever teaches something beyond what the apostles gave us in the New Testament, that teaching can't be infallible. It might be good, but it's not infallible. So my question is, have the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches gone beyond the apostles?

And I think that they have. For example, they've held numerous church councils that further developed Christian doctrines and altered Christian practices. For example, they've defined doctrines, further defined doctrines about God, about Jesus' nature. They've approved the use of icons of saints and prayers to Mary. And quite a few of these councils are claimed by these churches to have resulted in infallible pronouncements for Christians, even though no non-apostolic teaching can be infallible.

And also, I think they've gone beyond the apostles, as I'll show later, by not following all the practices that Jesus commanded for his disciples.

So I want to respond to another view of authority before finishing with this that, um, the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and certain Protestant churches hold. They hold that a church's authority to baptize or ordain leaders or teach doctrine comes from what's called apostolic succession.

And what that means is that their church leaders were ordained by bishops who were ordained by other bishops, et cetera, et cetera, back in an unbroken line to the apostles. So basically, they have a direct line of ordination that goes back to the apostles, is the claim, and that the apostolic authority lives on in the bishops who are alive today, so they can still make doctrinal pronouncements.

And additionally, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the Pope has special authority, which goes straight back to the apostle Peter in a similar way. Now, I don't have the time in a short sermon to give a full refutation of the doctrines of apostolic succession and the papacy. Um, books and books and books have been written on subjects like this. But, um, if people are interested, I might follow up later. But here are some things that I would point out. One is there's no direct support for these doctrines in the apostolic teachings. However, we can know for sure from scripture who is teaching the apostolic faith, because we know from scripture what the apostolic faith is.

Um, and, and, um, if somebody, whether they're a bishop or a thousand bishops, or whether they're the Pope, have further defined doctrines beyond what the apostles taught, and then they say this is apostolic, that that hardly seems to be apostolic to me when you when you go beyond what the apostles have said and perhaps counter or get rid of what they've said in some areas.

And that's just what I think that their churches have done in some in some areas.

So to conclude, any authority that a church has today must be founded on the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, which was delivered by the Spirit through the apostles. And it's those who follow these doctrines and practices that were laid down by the apostles who have true apostolic succession.

And since the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have added to and changed Christianity, they haven't entirely followed the apostolic faith. So I conclude that there isn't a church anywhere with the authority to stand between us and the apostolic teaching. No church has the authority to change or further define Christian doctrines and practices beyond what the apostles taught in spoken word or by letter, as Paul said.

So, um, moving on from that, my second argument is going to be about salvation, and which is basically what should we do to be saved. Now, I could I don't need to argue for the truth of the Anabaptist view of salvation here in particular, because David Rousseau and others have done that here. But I'm just going to give a quick summary of the Anabaptist view of salvation and answer one or two objections.

So the historic Anabaptist doctrine is that we are saved through repentance, faith, and obedience. Jesus teaches us that God is our Father and that the greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbor. And if God's our Father, he's not just going to want us to believe some things about him. He wants us to be his children.

He wants us to know and to love him.

So what is faith? A word we often hear. The Greek word translated as faith in Paul's letters means loyalty or faithfulness. When we truly love someone, we will be loyal and faithful to that person. We'll act faithfully and not just believe in them.

So even though Protestants have argued that salvation is by faith alone, I think that faith in God and good actions or good works are not two different things. To see this, you can consider some of the uses of the concept of faith that I have here on the screen. For example, the general kept faith with his soldiers, or the general was faithful to his commander, or the general's faithfulness gained the people's admiration.

So is it possible for the general to have faith if he doesn't act on it? Can he have faith without works, or can he have faith alone? And I think not, because faith requires action. And similarly, if a man is unfaithful to his wife, it's not because he's disbelieved something, it's because he's acted in a certain way.

James points out how closely connected the concepts of faith and works are when he says, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to him, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled without giving them the need the things needed for the body,' what good is that? So also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

So faith and works are not different things because faith demands action. Therefore, when Paul says that salvation is through faith, that very concept includes works. Paul only writes against a certain kind of works, that is, works of the Mosaic law.

So the question is, do our works earn our salvation? And I think not, as Paul points out, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing. It is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And he also says, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift, but his duty. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace." So our works don't earn our salvation, and scripture is clear that we haven't saved ourselves through our works. But scripture is also clear that good works are necessary. So is that a contradiction?

Well, I think not.

Because just because something is a gift doesn't mean that nothing is required to get it. And for example, my phone provider offered me a digital gift card for having stayed with them a certain amount of time. Well, to get this gift card, I needed to go to a website, um, enter this code, um, click a button, choose where I wanted it to go. It was actually very confusing. But did that make so that this gift card was no longer a gift card? Was it a works card? I don't know.

No, it's still a gift because it was given to me. I didn't do anything to earn this this gift card, but I did have to do some things to get the gift or to receive the gift. And in the same way, our works don't earn our salvation. Our works are necessary for salvation, but they don't earn it. God knows that we're not perfect, and he doesn't demand perfection from us. He works with us just like a father works with his child.

So that's a very short summary of a very complex topic. But in conclusion, I think the Anabaptist call to be faithful and obedient children of God is the true picture of salvation, and that the Protestant doctrine of faith alone is just not an accurate description of what scripture teaches. So our works don't earn our salvation. Salvation is a gift. But just like that gift card, that doesn't mean no action is required on our part in order to receive the gift.

So my final argument is going to be about non-resistance, which is returning violence with kindness, as I've defined it here. So far, I've argued that the New Testament teachings are authoritative and that obedience to Jesus' commands is necessary in my second argument. In my final argument, I'm going to look at one area where the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestants have not have not remained true to the teachings of the apostles.

And that's in this area. So in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 to 7, Jesus gave his followers a lot of instruction on how to live. I'm going to look at one of his teachings in particular, one that's found there and throughout the rest of the New Testament, which Roman Catholics and Protestants have not tended to teach as a necessary teaching or instruction.

So first, what is non-resistance? Other people have called this non-violence or a similar thing. I'm not sure that they're exactly the same thing, but they're similar concepts. I think that non-resistance is to prefer to die oneself rather than to kill another person, or to choose to suffer wrong oneself rather than to harm another. In any in pretty much any situation that where there's going to be harm to someone, we don't we don't put that harm on other people. We take it on ourselves.

So to understand this doctrine, I'm going to have to take a quick dive into another complex area, which is the kingdom of God.

Jesus' main message was about the kingdom of God. In fact, his first proclamation was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And he told a lot of parables that describe the kingdom of heaven. So just like a mustard seed or like yeast, the kingdom would start small and grow into something huge that couldn't be hidden, or like a dragnet, it would draw in many people, and God would judge between them at the final judgment.

So Jesus has taken his place as Messiah or Christ to be God's chosen king to rule over God's kingdom. And his kingdom will be active on the earth until the final judgment. And Christians belong to God's kingdom. God has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.

Back before we were Christians, another prince, which Paul calls in Ephesians, the prince of the power of the air, ruled over us. But now Christians are saved through being citizens of the kingdom of God. And Christians aren't bound by other powers because God set Jesus far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come.

However, as citizens of God's kingdom, we're bound to follow Christ and obey his commands.

So our nationality is with the kingdom of God first, rather than with um rather than with a kingdom of this world. Now, I think that a kingdom that comes from heaven will have different values than a kingdom that comes from the earth.

When Jesus taught his disciples, those were the values he was teaching them. And one of these values is to renounce violence and force. Jesus said, "I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

And I think that's fairly clear. But some have argued that this isn't a commandment that we need to follow. However, I think it is because Jesus told the apostles in the um Great Commissions, the Great Commission, to teach all their followers to observe all that I have commanded you. And this was one of the things that he had commanded to them.

When Jesus says, "Do not resist the one who is evil," we need to listen to his command. Instead, if someone attacks us or if someone defrauds us or is just nasty to us um in some way, we should do good things to them instead of retaliating. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and our persecutors. And that doesn't leave us for a lot of a lot of leave us a lot of room for violence.

Paul also reiterated Jesus' command when he wrote to the Christians in Rome that they should repay no one evil for evil and never avenge themselves. He says, "To the contrary, if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. For by so doing, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

So in other words, when we combat violence with violence or coercion with coercion or just nastiness with nastiness, we're not actually winning. Instead, we're being overcome by evil. So if I respond violently to someone who threatens me, I'm actually allowing him to define my actions. But if I respond by helping my enemy and providing for his needs, I can remain true to the higher laws of the kingdom of heaven.

Peter also confirmed what Jesus and Paul said. He said, "Do not repay evil for evil or for reviling. But on the contrary, bless. For to this you are called that you may obtain a blessing." He concludes, "For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil." So it's an honor to suffer for Jesus' kingdom and for his sake. And there are blessings in store for those who will return good for evil.

And Jesus didn't ask us to do what he wasn't willing to do himself, even when he himself was threatened with death. So we can follow his example. It's not something he's telling us to do that we aren't that he wasn't willing to to exemplify for himself. He told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from this world." So because Jesus' kingdom is from heaven rather than from this world, its citizens don't use the world's methods for overcoming evil. As Paul said, "We should not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

Now, our kingdom does take part in warfare, but our warfare takes place in the heavenly realms. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

And what are the weapons that we use for our warfare? Paul lists them. The belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit with all prayer and supplication.

And these are mighty and effective weapons. They're not anything second rate. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "We are not waging war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds."

And I wish I could tell a lot of stories of strongholds that these weapons have destroyed because many, many times God has shown his faithfulness to those who have used his methods and averted terrible evils. But again, we don't have we don't have time here.

So the weapons of this world are not able to bring peace. Using necessary evils to restrain evil will only result in further evil or using just war to fight against an unjust war. That only results in more war.

Instead, the weapons of heaven will ultimately destroy evil. But we need to be willing to lose our lives in the process. And this is why Anabaptist churches have taught that servants of God in his kingdom must not take up arms, whether for personal protection or for war.

So the question is, who follows Christ? Who does what he asked? What faith teaches what he taught?

Paul told the church at Rome to overcome evil with good. And what methods have the Roman Catholic Church used?

I think we can think of many cases where the Roman Catholics have taken part. The church itself has taken part in wars, crusades, and political killings.

And what methods also did the Protestant reformers use? Well, Luther and Calvin and Zwingli took part in war as well, and they used the sword to get rid of their enemies. The Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Protestant churches have a long history of being state churches, and they've used violence to subjugate their enemies. And even now that they're no longer a state church, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant churches, they have encouraged Christians to take up arms and go to war for the sake of their earthly nation, even though we're already warring for our heavenly kingdom. And in fact, most wars in the West for the past millennium have consisted basically of Christians slaughtering their fellow Christians who simply lived across the other side of a national border.

And unfortunately, this very day, one of the major branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church is urging Russian Christians to go to war against Ukrainian Christians. And most of them belong to the very same Eastern Orthodox Church, even some of them to the same branch of that same church.

By these people's actions, they're demonstrating that the heavenly calling of the kingdom of God is only secondarily important after their earthly loyalties. I'm not in the place of judging them, but I leave that to Christ.

So in summary, Jesus called us to love each other. And the kind of love he asks of us is one that works itself out in actions. Whatever those actions are, we should probably not start by killing each other.

Instead of retaliation, Jesus calls us to bless our enemies. And that was the witness of the apostolic church for centuries. And that's the witness of many Anabaptist Christians today. So I conclude that the Anabaptist doctrine of non-resistance is at the heart of true Christianity.

And no church, whatever their history, can change this doctrine.

So in conclusion, to to summarize what I've shared here, Christian doctrine and practice comes from Scripture's apostolic authority and cannot be further altered or defined. Christians are saved by being God's faithful children, showing faith in good works. And finally, Christians should live as citizens of the kingdom of heaven and not take place in take part in violence or war.

So my conclusion is is not that there's one true denomination and everybody else should leave their church and go join it. Instead, I'm encouraging everybody, all Christians, to give their first loyalty to the kingdom of God, to live according to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, and to build the church of God the way the apostles built it long ago. And they built one unified, loving church that saw Jesus as their king and God.

I also think that Anabaptists should know their own beliefs and how to defend their beliefs. And I'm offering this as a resource for for further conversations with people who hold other beliefs. I think, again, that nobody's going to be helped if the people who who know the truth are unable to convince others of the truth. And there are many out there today who are seeking for truth.

We need to be able to share it with them. And most of all, I want to urge Christians everywhere to live in unity as those who belong to one kingdom, ruled by one king who's worthy of all faithfulness. Because, as Paul says, there is one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. And it's for this faith that we should all dwell in unity.