How I Interpret Church History

I affirm:

That I will not be counted with those who shed innocent blood, I will not hate my Brother, because as the bible states:
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
-1 John 3:15

I was forced to make this oath because church history records numerous instances of persecution of Christians by other Christians. This has and will always be wrong to do and the same as Cain’s sin against his brother Abel (1 John 3:11-15). The act of persecuting other Believers was wrong for those who dared to do so in the past and is wrong for those who do so today.

As the bible make clear, persecuting other Christians is a definite sign that there is no saving faith in a person, at least until they repent (1 John 3:15-18). This is enhanced by the fact these verses refer to not helping those Brothers and Sisters who are in need, let alone the evil represented by those who would murder or persecute a Brother or Sister.

However, there are numerous church leaders and theologians throughout history who have persecuted other believers and did not, as far as we know, ever repent of this.

Usually those persecuted were a theological minority who disagreed with the will of the majority of Christians. From the Donatists, who declared that only morally pure church leaders had valid sacraments and prayers, to the Anabaptists, who declared that Baptism should be for actual believers in Jesus Christ instead of infants, there has been a train of persecution against Brothers and Sisters over theology, when there is never a reason to persecute Christians.

Now, I must state that according to the bible Christians can be rightfully kicked out of a church without this being a form of persecution. This is allowed when a Christian is sinning boldly without repentance (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) or when a Christian is a false teacher (2 John 8-11). In both cases, this is not persecution but is instead church discipline.

Now, the question arises as to whether we should still in some way revere those Christians who persecuted other Believers in their life. Our first instinct would seem to be to consider their good works righteous and good to emulate and their bad acts bad and to be avoided. However, the bible does not tell us to do this. Instead Jesus gives us a hard teaching on what to do with Believers who reveal an evil heart. Matthew 7:15-20 tells us:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

I must give full disclosure though. One thing does trouble on this teaching that I must figure out. That is that one thing could be asked at this point: Are these church leaders caught in sinful behavior like the good kings in the Old Testament that do evil later in their lives? That is, is there anything positive to learn from them at all? The problem here seems to be that those kings were typically righteous but could sin boldly on occasion, and they and their descendants suffered for it every time. It may just be I don’t fully understand the New Covenant under Jesus to the old one under the Law.

 

I look at the history of the church as like the history given in the Old Testament after Moses. There are some genuinely righteous characters but more characters who were deeply flawed and repented to live spectacular new lives. Some of these righteous characters even did theology. However, there are many failed characters and the average righteous Christian has had to live persecuted or even martyred in this world. It is especially the perspective of persecuted Christians and martyrs that constructs the success stories of church history to me.

I did spend three years in seminary, where I did the course work for the equivalent of an MTS. The main difference between this viewpoint and the normal one in seminary, other than a clean conscience I would argue, is that I abandon much of the political and intellectual heavyweights of the Christian faith to the midden heap of history if they died in grievous, unrepentant sin. So Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin are thrown out along with the Roman Catholic Church's Magisterium, but that still leaves some church "big name" church leaders such as John Wesley or Menno Simons and a great number of "minor" saints that suffered throughout history.

 

I believe that this sentiment is one of the biggest problems in the church today. I spelled out my position in this thread:
How I Read the Bible on Works and Salvation

That position's logical conclusion is that there are many people in the church today who sin unrepentantly: pornography addicts, abortionists, those filled with biblically defined hatred or resentment, fornicators, unbiblical divorcers, those prone to fits of rage and fighting, those whose tongues have mastered them utterly, those who lie regularly, drug addicts, and many more who ultimately wind up in hell. The problem I have confronted is how could so many church leaders allow such a hideous system to continue. The logic is inevitably that a close, straightforward, and literal reading of the Word is to be abandoned in the face emotional appeals to Grace and Forgiveness. Even though Paul, the humble beneficiary of spectacular amounts of Grace from God, goes onto condemn in no uncertain terms every single person who would commit such unrepentant sins as I have listed to excommunication. In the hope they might make it to heaven by repenting and becoming rooted Believers.

I know I must sound like a raving madman in a way, but I see no way around so many bible verses supporting my new perspective and condemning my old one, which was yours until a few months ago. Bible verses that just keep growing in number whenever I pick up the Word.

 

Of the distinctives, I agree with all of them in spirit. The only troubling two for me is soul liberty and separation of church and state. I think it is up to the state or nation to determine themselves how the church and government will function within them. On soul liberty, I wonder if it goes a little too far, but I definitely support the spirit of preventing persecution of Brothers and Sisters over theological views. So, I guess I am still a Baptist or possibly even Anabaptist, but I have dropped the common definition of eternal security as pray a prayer and just believe to get lifelong salvation. I am instead one who will judge a person 's faith not by what they say but by what they do after they have prayed the prayer, because that gives me a window to their heart.

 

Good point, I think the middle ground has to deal with admitting even righteous men and women sin and need to come to repentance even after they are saved.

Here, I want to stress the difference between David and Saul. David was a sinner yes, but he also had the moral compass to take seriously when he was called out and not to reject God when he was punished for his sins. David repents of all his big ticket sins continuously throughout his life, even though it was very pot-marked in places. Saul on the other hand is rejected by God and accursed. God leaves out the call for Saul to repent, but despite his privileged treatment by God, he goes on to steadfastly die in his sins.

These two men show where Grace comes into the picture. David is forgiven when he repents, though his worst sins bring some form of punishment short of death, and God does great things with David despite his flaws. Even Saul is warned and prodded to stop his foolish ways, but never desires to really set things right with God.

God is thus reaching out to and warning sinners of the Day to come, while He forgives and disciplines His true children who love Him.

 

I am not a five point Arminian, nor am I semi-Pelagian, simply because I view both viewpoints as unbiblical. That said, I do believe that Christians can choose to obey or disobey God after they have received the Gospel with gladness. The parable of the Sower and many other bible verses leads me to this conclusion.

Now, I could say a great number of bombastic things about this truth, but the crux of the matter to my study of the bible is simple: I will take the bible at its literal word in many, many verses provided in my other post I link in the OP. Those who show their faith by their obedience to Jesus are confirmed in their salvation. Those who live disobediently to Jesus' commands show that they, at the very least, may be bound for perdition as false Christians. I must also add that "once saved, always saved" is not one of the eight baptist distinctives.

Now, it must be said that no mere humans live according to this standard of Jesus' own life. However, the bible tells us to "make every effort" in a few places when it comes to living righteously including in 2 Peter 1:5-8. That is the standard I live by, and it is the standard I expect all Christians to live by. I mean what are those who do not make every effort every day called but backsliders? People who need the love and discipline required to keep running the race. We are given a mere 80-ish years on earth, and an eternity in heaven. I owe Jesus at least this sacrifice of myself of making every effort for the torture he endured for me and the reward and forgiveness he is giving me in time. I sin and make mistakes, dangerous as it is to do, but I know to rush to the Father to confess my sin, repent, and move on in life free of regret and fearful of repeating my mistake.