Non-Violence as Taught in the New Testament is Moral and Good.

[Hank77]

The Bible tells us not to stand idly by while our neighbors blood is shed (Lev. 19:6)

The pacifism in the NT seems primarily about when YOU are attacked. It is about personal assault and offense. It really says nothing about civil/national concerns of the larger group.

I think you mean Lev. 19:16
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

If this is the verse I think it means that we should not do anything to harm our neighbor, by bearing a false witness.

 

[Hank77]

Second, saving a life in the moment is one thing.

That is exactly what most of us are talking about 'saving a life in a moment' from one who intends to end that life.

 

[Hank77]

Again, the Old Law is no longer in effect as a whole. Certain aspects of the Old Law may been repeated in the New, but that does not mean the Old Law as a whole is still in effect.

In other words, when we seek to obey God's laws, we look to the New Testament and not the Old Testament.



Using deadly force is forbidden for the New Covenant believer. You have to stop thinking in terms that God is not in control of every given situation. Nothing can happen in this world without God's say so. Also, God is the giver and taker of life, too.


...

And God is known to save lives by using people to do that as part of His plan.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What may be legal is not necessarily the way of the gospel. Jesus clearly teaches us to embrace pacifism. It is a hard teaching, but is certainly there in the gospels.

Again, if someone chooses not to defend his/herself OK that is their business, but do not tell others not to do it and whatever you do do not refuse to defend others.

 

[Balugon]

Jason0047- What is it about pacifism that attracts you?

As for me, I believe in the protective use of force- nonlethal as much as possible- stun guns, pepper spray, water hoses. I also think, though, given the way the world is today, that these aren't always an option. There are plenty of people who would keep killing if they weren't stopped, and unfortunately for them, some of them will only stop upon death. Police have gotten into tons of situations where they told the person to drop their weapons and come out, but the person decided to keep shooting instead.

Scriptures on the protective use of force:

Genesis 19:10-12 (This one was temporary.)

Acts 13:10-12 (Protective in that temporary "harm" came to someone to bring about good.)

Acts 23:21-24 Guards were used to keep Paul alive.

Mark 12:31- Love my neighbor as myself. If someone would regret that they killed a bunch of people later, and they would have wished that someone had stopped them, one could conclude that lethal force is sometimes valid.

 

[expos4ever]

So, the moral law in the Torah is abolished?

Yes, Paul is quite clear that the Law of Moses has been set aside - this is why all the arguments in this thread that appeal to the Law of Moses to defend the use of force are off the mark.

Now I must vehemently insist that posters not engage in the flagrantly incorrect line of reasoning that goes like this: If one claims that the Law of Moses is set aside (retired), one is thereby saying its OK to murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, etc.

This is simply not the case: to say that the written code is set aside does not mean that, under the New Covenant, we are not given an alternate source to guide our behaviour.

And that source is, of course, the Holy Spirit.

 

[expos4ever]

Again, if someone chooses not to defend his/herself OK that is their business, but do not tell others not to do it and whatever you do do not refuse to defend others.

I cannot understand this line of reasoning - I could equally well argue that if others want to commit adultery, murder, etc., that is "their business". You and I may not like it, but Jesus clearly affirms the way of pacifism. We can debate how that cashes out in terms of how we are called to act in various contexts, but this line of argument that "it's not your business" is clearly not valid.

 

[Hank77]

I cannot understand this line of reasoning - I could equally well argue that if others want to commit adultery, murder, etc., that is "their business". You and I may not like it, but Jesus clearly affirms the way of pacifism. We can debate how that cashes out in terms of how we are called to act in various contexts, but this line of argument that "it's not your business" is clearly not valid.

I suggest that if one does not consider that Jesus was talking to Jews who would understand what He was saying about 'an eye for an eye' (an act of revenge/retaliation) they will not understand that Jesus is saying 'do not take revenge, do not retaliate' when someone offends you, even if that offense is physical.
The next verse is in the same tone about ones property.

 

[expos4ever]

I suggest that if one does not consider that Jesus was talking to Jews who would understand what He was saying about 'an eye for an eye' (an act of revenge/retaliation) they will not understand that Jesus is saying 'do not take revenge, do not retaliate' when someone offends you, even if that offense is physical.
The next verse is in the same tone about ones property.

I can accept this, but the argument that Jesus endorse pacifism is based on a number of other texts over and above this teaching about "an eye for an eye".

 

[Hank77]

I can accept this, but the argument that Jesus endorse pacifism is based on a number of other texts over and above this teaching about "an eye for an eye".

I cannot think of any other scripture that is not clearly referring to being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel. In other words being persecuted because one is a Christian, such as Stephen, Jesus, Paul, etc.

 

[expos4ever]

I cannot think of any other scripture that is not clearly referring to being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel. In other words being persecuted because one is a Christian, such as Stephen, Jesus, Paul, etc.

Not sure what you mean. I think it is clear that Jesus generally endorses pacifism:

- he who lives by the sword will die by the sword;
- in front of Pilate He (John 18:36) asserts that it is specifically in the nature of being a kingdom of God citizen that the use of force is rejected to rescue Jesus;
- etc. (I suspect there are other examples but I am in a rush)

More later.....

 

[Hank77]

he who lives by the sword will die by the sword;

LIVE by the sword. This means just that, one who chooses to LIVE by the sword. This is someone who chooses to live their life violently, it is their habit. Those who choose to war against each other will likely perish that same way because they refuse to live peaceably.
This may even have been prophetic as we see that Israel, by the Jewish leaders, and Rome took up the sword against Jesus and the sword was taken up against them. The Romans against the Jews who's government was destroyed and the people dispersed. The Roman Empire destroyed by the Goths, etc.
There had to have been a reason that Jesus wanted them to bring swords, which they already owned. There was a lesson to be learned.
Jesus and His Kingdom are not to be defended with swords, we are expected to defend only with the word of God and prayer. We are expected to Give our lives for both, even onto death, we never kill anyone to defend the faith.

in front of Pilate He (John 18:36) asserts that it is specifically in the nature of being a kingdom of God citizen that the use of force is rejected to rescue Jesus;

My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight...
One does not use secular means of defense to defend what is spiritual, angelic, and divine. We are to be meek, gentle, kind, loving, and passive (non=violent) when defending the faith.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

LIVE by the sword. This means just that, one who chooses to LIVE by the sword. This is someone who chooses to live their life violently, it is their habit. Those who choose to war against each other will likely perish that same way because they refuse to live peaceably.
This may even have been prophetic as we see that Israel, by the Jewish leaders, and Rome took up the sword against Jesus and the sword was taken up against them. The Romans against the Jews who's government was destroyed and the people dispersed. The Roman Empire destroyed by the Goths, etc.
There had to have been a reason that Jesus wanted them to bring swords, which they already owned. There was a lesson to be learned.
Jesus and His Kingdom are not to be defended with swords, we are expected to defend only with the word of God and prayer. We are expected to Give our lives for both, even onto death, we never kill anyone to defend the faith.

My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight...
One does not use secular means of defense to defend what is spiritual, angelic, and divine. We are to be meek, gentle, kind, loving, and passive (non=violent) when defending the faith.

Hmmm... yeah. I am not buying that. The context of Jesus's words that say, "if you live by the sword, you shall die by the sword" is a part of a rebuke to Peter in chopping off the Roman soldier's ear. Peter was not a man of war, but he was a fisherman. Peter wanted to defend His Lord, which was someone He loved very deeply. But Jesus rebuked Peter. Christ said that He could have called a ton of angels down by asking the Father. So there was no need for Peter to act violently. That is the point Jesus is trying to make to Peter. This would no doubt be a lesson that would apply to all future believers (Especially in light of the many other verses on Non-Violence within the New Testament).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason0047- What is it about pacifism that attracts you?

What attracts me to Non-Violence (Not Pacifism) is that it is Biblical and or a teaching of the New Testament.

As for me, I believe in the protective use of force- nonlethal as much as possible- stun guns, pepper spray, water hoses. I also think, though, given the way the world is today, that these aren't always an option. There are plenty of people who would keep killing if they weren't stopped, and unfortunately for them, some of them will only stop upon death. Police have gotten into tons of situations where they told the person to drop their weapons and come out, but the person decided to keep shooting instead.

God realizes not everyone is going to follow all of His word and or keep all of His teachings. Hence, why there is a police and a military. For the world's ways are not God's ways (even though God can use worldly powers for His greater purpose for good). For example: God used the Jews, Judas, and the Romans for His greater plan for good (Which involved the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for our sins). Yet, Jesus did not act aggressively towards anyone during His Earthly ministry; And the Scriptures repeatedly tell us that we are to imitate Christ's behavior (1 Peter 2:21) (Philippians 2:3-8) (1 John 2:6) (1 Thessalonians 1:6). Jesus's way is a higher way or path that most are not willing to strive for.

Scriptures on the protective use of force:

Genesis 19:10-12 (This one was temporary.)

The Old Testament Law is no longer in effect. In other words, as you said, the passage you quoted was temporary.

Acts 13:10-12 (Protective in that temporary "harm" came to someone to bring about good.)

This was a miracle being brought about by a declaration of a believer (who had a close relationship with God). The act of aggression that took place here was by the Lord's hand here and not by the believer's hand.

Acts 23:21-24 Guards were used to keep Paul alive.

"Do not yield unto them" is too ambiguous of a statement. It does not specifically mean to act aggressively.

Mark 12:31- Love my neighbor as myself. If someone would regret that they killed a bunch of people later, and they would have wished that someone had stopped them, one could conclude that lethal force is sometimes valid.

But if your neighbor is the one doing the killing, surely they wouldn't want you to kill them. Love is something all people really do desire deep down. So your enemy would prefer you to love, and do good unto them (Just as Jesus says). Also, you wouldn't want anyone to kill you (Regardless of whether you thought they were defending themselves or not).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And God is known to save lives by using people to do that as part of His plan.

God uses the devil for His greater plan for good. That doesn't mean we can act like the Devil or that we can do whatever we feel is right in our own eyes.


...

 

[Hank77]

God uses the devil for His greater plan for good. That doesn't mean we can act like the Devil or that we can do whatever we feel is right in our own eyes.


...

There you go again making statements that make no sense at all. This just says to me that you cannot come up with a better argument.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There you go again making statements that make no sense at all. This just says to me that you cannot come up with a better argument.

You believe self defense with the use of lethal force is in line with God's plan. While God can use people who use violence as a means of self defense for his greater purpose for good, that does not negate the fact that God would prefer people to imitate the life of Christ instead (According to His Word).

I believe doing what is right in one's own eyes is denying the teaching in the New Testament on Non-Violence. Let's face it. Why would anyone want to trust in God to protect them if it is not always a guarantee? Is it not more easier to use a gun and just blow somebody away? Especially if that is what many are used to doing as a part of their old life?

...

 

[Hank77]

You believe self defense with the use of lethal force is in line with God's plan. While God can use people who use violence as a means of self defense for his greater purpose for good, that doesn't mean God would prefer people to imitate the life of Christ instead (According to His Word).

I believe doing what is right in one's own eyes is denying the teaching in the New Testament on Pacifism. Let's face it. Why would anyone want to trust in God to protect them if it is not always a guarantee? Is it not just more easier to use a gun and blow somebody away? Especially if that is what many are used to doing as a part of their old life?

...

And I believe that defense of life, even lethal defense as a last resort, is justified in God's Word. You don't seem to believe what Paul said about the OT being valuable to the Christians for learning God's ways and I do.
Such as Nehemiah 4, Ezekiel 33, and Psalm 82:4.

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
God Bless You

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And I believe that defense of life, even lethal defense as a last resort, is justified in God's Word. You don't seem to believe what Paul said about the OT being valuable to the Christians for learning God's ways and I do.
Such as Nehemiah 4, Ezekiel 33, and Psalm 82:4.

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
God Bless You

Where does Paul quote from these portions of Scriptures? Is his point about using lethal self defense by referencing this Scripture? If so, then where do you think he says this?

...

 

[Hank77]

Where does Paul quote from these portions of Scriptures? Is his point about using lethal self defense by referencing this Scripture? If so, then where do you think he says this?

...

That is not what I meant. Paul says that OT scriptures are valuable to us for reproof, etc.

Then I listed a few that I feel are relevant to the topic of this thread.

I am no longer going to argue about this topic, I have no more to say about it. God Bless