But your interpretation of the NT is controversial and unexplained, that is the point.

The interpretation of passages like that are highly controversial. For a start, if applied universally they would have consequences extreme and absurd. This is presumably why the Church, including the apostles, have not interpreted them in this way.

The strong distinction you make between the Christian and the secular requires a lot more detail. At the moment you seem to be driving a complete wedge between the two, and it is hard to see how you could show the Christian doesn't have to condemn the state and its concerns wholesale (leaving aside he isn't supposed to be judging). The point is not that the Church is going to be administering punishments itself, but simply that Christianity is not in fundamental opposition to the state and its legitimate authority.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The point is not that the Church is going to be administering punishments itself, but simply that Christianity is not in fundamental opposition to the state and its legitimate authority.

Actually, one of the arguments by Dr. Feser (if the reviews are right) is exactly that the popes have administered these punishments themselves, as in employing executioners. Whether this is scripturally legitimate for a Christian church to do is exactly the issue.

I fully grant that within the framework of Roman Catholic doctrine the Church has the right to do and think as it has done, and Dr Feser is defending that framework. My point is that this is not a Christian framework, it does not represent the scriptures (particularly NT) and it does not represent the apostles and (early) Church Fathers.

Catholics may think they have discovered a universal rulebook for everyone in the world. It may be a pretty good book indeed, but concerning Christians in particular, the scriptures say that we are not of this world, so non-catholics easily see how Catholics have strayed away on this point.

Last edited by seigneur (11/20/2017 6:10 am)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

They aren't supposed to apply just to Christians. Are you suggesting that the Sermon on the Mount and its ethical teaching were to be applied by Christians only to Christians?

Are you saying that the world must obey the gospel? Isn't the world the world precisely because they reject the gospel?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm not sure I qualify as a Christian at al...

So you are pretty much undefined. This explains a lot, really.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

...traditional denominations (the Eastern Churches, the Roman Church, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and mainstream Reformed Churches) have not interpreted those passages in the sense you are doing, which would mean some kind of complete pacifistic anarchism for a start.

Actually they have interpreted them precisely in this manner.[*] Following their own interpretation is another matter. For example, Acts 4:32-35 practically prescribes Communism, but who obeys it? Maybe some monastic order does, but no denomination does. At the same time, every denomination, if it claims to be Christian, must concede that this passage prescribes Communism or something like it (for the Christian community, not to society at large).

* If you have some specific author in mind, cite him, and I will cite mine. As long as you don't, I won't either and this discussion remains on the level of barking.
 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I'm unaware of any traditional, mainstream denomination as interpreting the NT to say communism is mandatory or morally obligatory.

Nobody says "communism" so that's why you won't find it. However, NT is scripture for everyone and Acts 4:32-35 says what it says. Try to make anything else out of it than what it says. Bendictine Rule is a good starting point at a practical application.

And, again, as long as you are not quoting anyone to show what you are aware of, as opposed to unaware of, I don't feel obligated to quote any sources either.