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

[Bible Highlighter]

I did a thread clean up of all my posts to remove the word "Pacifism" and to replace it with the word "Non-Violence" (and it's variations). I misunderstood the word "pacifism." Pacifism teaches that no war of any kind is justified. In light of this fact, I do not believe in "Pacifism" because it teaches that no war of any kind is justified. For I do believe God sanctioned wars in the Old Testament, and that Christ will return to fight those nations at His Second Coming.

Now, I do believe in Non-Violence for the New Testament saint (Who lives out their faith here upon this Earth) based on the light of many verses in Scripture. Non-Violence is not acting in violence in return if you are attacked. Non-Violence is similar to Pacifism in the fact that one does not act violently or seek to go to war to physically harm others, etc. but it is different in the fact that it is not against all forms of war or self defense of any kind. I am of the belief that Christians are to act in a non-violent way here upon this Earth, and that they are not to take up positions of killing others physically.

An example would be the movie: "Hacksaw Ridge."

While the Christian may not be against the workings of the army itself (Because they see it as an arm of justice from God), they are commanded personally as Christians to non-violence by the Lord and His followers.

 

[SPF]

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

C.S. Lewis was against pacifism: http://www.cslewis.com/why-im-not-a-pacifist/

Jesus wasn't a pacifist: Was Jesus a pacifist?

Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) in that He will one day bring true and lasting peace to the earth. And His message in this world was remarkably non-violent (Matthew 5:38–44). But the Bible is clear that sometimes war is necessary (see Psalm 144:1). And, given some of the Bible’s prophecies of Jesus, it is hard to call Him a pacifist. Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13).

In Jesus’ interaction with the Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his servant, and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus was not preaching pacifism. John the Baptist also encountered soldiers, and they asked him, “What should we do?” (Luke 3:14). This would have been the perfect opportunity for John to tell them to lay down their arms. But he did not. Rather, John told the soldiers, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

Good article from CrossWalk:Why Pacifism Isn't the Biblical Response to Terrorism

It is clearly God’s intent that we strive for peace. Yet, some circumstances warrant the use of force—but under what conditions? Biblical, justifiable war has at least five essential aspects.
First, the primary purpose is to defend those under attack.
Proverbs 24:8-12: “Care for those being marched off to slaughter.”
Second, vengeance is tempered by justice.
Romans 13:1a, 4: “But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Romans 12:19: “Vengeance is mine.”
Third, there must be a reasonable prospect of victory—of achieving the ends for which the war is fought.
Luke 14:28-32: “Consider your resources before you go out to fight a war—if you are not in a position to win, negotiate.”
On April 19, 1952, General Douglas MacArthur stood before a joint session of Congress to deliver his famous farewell address: "...old soldiers never die, they just fade away." His speech, however, is much more than a farewell. It also includes the following thoughts on war and peace: "...It has been said in effect that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision. In war there is no substitute for victory."
Fourth, the motives must be pure.
James 4:1-3: “Why do you fight? Because you have the wrong motives in your heart..
Hebrews 4:12: “God Judges The Thoughts And Attitudes Of The Heart.”
But, our real defense as a nation rests in the spiritual convictions, character, and commitment of our citizenry.
Psalm 20:7: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God."
2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
Fifth, the post-war attitude is one of mercy.
Matthew 5:7: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”
John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than his own personal safety is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless he is made free and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Yes, some things are still worth living and dying for.
Bears still roam the wilderness of our world. May God help us.

 

[SPF]

Nonresistance is not acting in resistance or violence in return if you are attacked. Nonresistance is similar to Pacifism in the fact that one does not act violently or seek to go to war physically etc. but it is different in the fact that it is not against all forms of war or self defense of any kind. I am of the belief that Christians are to act in a non-violent way here upon this Earth, and that they are not to take up positions of killing others physically.

I'm not sure if you're married and have children, I would imagine given what you've said that you probably don't. I would recommend that you let your wife know that if someone breaks in you aren't going to do everything you can to protect your family.

 

[FireDragon76]

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

C.S. Lewis was against pacifism: http://www.cslewis.com/why-im-not-a-pacifist/

I really disagree with Lewis' tone. While he is generally correct, he's grounding his ethics too much in pragmatism, and I'm afraid he himself was influenced a great deal by the notion of warfare as crusading.

In light of the abuse of the doctrine of just war, I believe we need to give more careful consideration as to how it has been traditionally understood as a restraint on the inherent depravity of war.

Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13).

What nonsense. Whoever wrote that simply can't distinguish between spiritual symbolism and reality. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The One who rejected the discourse of violence and power in his earthly life is not about to take it up again.

In Jesus’ interaction with the Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his servant, and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus was not preaching pacifism.

True, Jesus was not exactly an Anabaptist in his ethics, but that doesn't mean he approved of warfare.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Historically, for a time, and times (there were exceptions, especially the last hundred years and on this forum recently) , Anabaptists were 'just like' the earlier first century believers and "followed Jesus" likewise. They did not think differently than Jesus, in ethics or otherwise. (when they did, from habits or carry-over thoughts from the old man (the flesh), they daily continually sought to "purify themselves as HE IS PURE", thus daily every day more like Jesus, in complete harmony with Him, in union with Jesus and with the Father in heaven) .

 

[SteveIndy]

I'm not sure if you're married and have children, I would imagine given what you've said that you probably don't. I would recommend that you let your wife know that if someone breaks in you aren't going to do everything you can to protect your family.

Trying to justify killing your enemy by using the O.T. is not very smart considering the O.T. has been taken out of the equation by Jesus Himself. In Mat. 5 Jesus say five times, "You have heard it said . . . but I say . . ." and in so doing overrides the teachings of Moses. Again in the book of Hebrews 1:1-2 He says "Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days He has spoken to us by His Son." Again 7:18-19, 22 "So the previous command is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable (for the law perfected nothing) but a better hope is introduced . . . ." "Because of this oath Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant." Again, ". . . He is the mediator of a better covenant which has been established on better promises." Again, "For if the first covenant had been faultless there would have been no occasion for a second one." Again, "By saying a new covenant He has declared that the first is obsolete. And, what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away." Again, "Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant. . . ." Again, "Where a will exist the death of the One who made it must be established. For a will is valid only when people die, since it is never in effect while the One who made it is living."

Now, the example of the N.T. writers and Jesus Himself shows, without exception, that we are to live a life of non-resistance to the evil person. There is not one example of believers in the N.T. nor for the better part of the first 300 years of the Church history of Christians taking up the sword for personal or national defense. The testimony of the Ante-Nicene fathers validate the doctrine of non-resistance to the evil person. It was only after Constantine and Augustine that the Church bowed to the flesh and picked up the sword. So, who do we go to for verification of our doctrine today? To Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin? No, for verification of N.T. truth we will go to Jesus, His Apostles, the first 300 years of Church history, and more recently the Anabaptist who understood the secret of overcoming evil with good. Your doctrine of overcoming evil with more evil cannot work, it only produces more evil.

One of us is wrong on this subject, but all the proof is on the side of non-resistance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

To let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups, it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism.

First, at one point in time I did not understand the definition of the word “pacifism.” Here is the word defined in the dictionary:

Pacifism​

(Webster's 1913 Dictionary)​

​

n. 1. the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable.​

Source:
pacifism | Definition of pacifism by Webster's Online Dictionary

Once I discovered that this is what the word meant (as shown above), I have now chosen to use the word “Non-Violence,” instead. So I no longer use the word “pacifism” because it is incorrect. For the Old Testament clearly teaches that God used violence to stop His enemies. Christ will also return and violently destroy the nations that will come up against Him at His 2nd coming.

Two, God knows the majority of the world is not going to obey Him (For Jesus said, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” - Matthew 7:14). So the army, police, etc. have their role in God executing justice as per Romans 13, but that does not mean they are obeying God in what His Word says. God was able to use the devil and the Romans, and the Jews as a part of Him being crucified to save the entire world, but God does not want us to go around and act like the devil, or to crucify people.

C.S. Lewis was against pacifism: Why I'm Not a Pacifist - Official Site | CSLewis.com

Well, C.S. Lewis is not an author I would follow or take advice from. He promoted witchcraft in his literary works.

For example: In Lewis' writings we read about how Lucy finds a magic spell book (or a book of incantations, which are also spells) on an island populated by invisible “monopods” in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. She uses this magic spell book to cast a spell, turning the invisible monopods visible.

Well... that's witchcraft!
Casting spells from a spell book is witchcraft!

Source:
The Witchcraft of The Chronicles of Narnia

Jesus wasn't a pacifist: Was Jesus a pacifist?

Right, Jesus wasn't a pacifist, but He was an agent of Non-Violence while here upon this Earth. Jesus taught Non-Violence as a part of our faith, and not Pacifism. Pacifism vs. being a temporary agent of Non-Violence are two different things.

Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) in that He will one day bring true and lasting peace to the earth. And His message in this world was remarkably non-violent (Matthew 5:38–44).

Right. Matthew 5:38-44 is proof that Jesus taught Non-Violence as a part of the faith. Nowhere will you find Jesus teaching using violent force for us to go to war, or in cases of self defense. We are told in Scripture to follow Christ's example and to follow in His steps. If we are to do that, we would not attack or hurt one another because Jesus did not attack or hurt others while on this Earth.

But the Bible is clear that sometimes war is necessary (see Psalm 144:1).

This is an Old Testament verse (Which was a part of the Old Covenant). Nowhere does the New Testament teach this same truth. Today: I believe that Psalms 144:1 for the believer in our day in age is in reference to how the believer needs to fight spiritually and not physically. Sure, it meant at one time to fight physically, but I believe we are not under the Old Covenant anymore. God is no longer commanding a believer as a part of being a nation of God (like: Israel) so as to destroy enemy nations. We are not commanded to wipe out evil and wicked nations anymore.

And, given some of the Bible’s prophecies of Jesus, it is hard to call Him a pacifist.

I think anyone who knows what the word “pacifist” means would not call Jesus a pacifist. I once misunderstood this word, but now I know better. Lately, I have been on a quest to know more words and their meaning (Especially those words that appear in the Bible, i.e. the KJB).

Revelation 19:15, speaking of Jesus, declares, “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Antichrist. Jesus’ robe will be “dipped in blood” (Revelation 19:13).

Right, this happens at Christ's 2nd coming. The saints that follow Him are disembodied saints who have already lived out their faith. They are not living saints still living out the faith.

In Jesus’ interaction with the Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his servant, and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus was not preaching pacifism.

Jesus specifically told the disciples not to go to any Gentiles cities yet. In fact, when Jesus encountered the Canaanite woman (Who is a Gentile), Jesus was trying to avoid her, but her faith grabbed his attention. But Jesus was still focused on Israel and not the Gentiles before the cross. But Jesus did teach non-violence at other times, though.

John the Baptist also encountered soldiers, and they asked him, “What should we do?” (Luke 3:14). This would have been the perfect opportunity for John to tell them to lay down their arms. But he did not. Rather, John told the soldiers, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

This is not true. John the Baptist did teach non-violence.

In the King James, it says:

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14) (KJV).

Good article from CrossWalk:Why Pacifism Isn't the Biblical Response to Terrorism

Well, getting beyond the annoying pop up ads so as to be able to read the article, they make some erroneous assumptions in Scripture.

First, they quote Old Testament passages to make their case. This is not a valid defense because we are New Covenant (New Testament) believers and not Old Testament (Old Covenant) believers. We do not go around sacrificing animals anymore. Neither are we commanded by God to destroy enemy nations, either (like God did with Israel). That's all in the past.

Second, they mention how vengeance is tempered by justice by pointing to Romans 13. While this may be true, Romans 13 is not proof that believers are to carry out this physical justice. The context of those who carry out this justice is the “higher powers” (Which is the government) and not the believer. The believer is to fear if they do evil because the higher powers can punish them. The believer is not the higher powers.

Three, they refer to Luke 14:31 as proof that a believer can fight. But this verse is not making a case for war, but it is ultimately making a point for counting the cost in being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Also, it refers to a KING trying to figure out how to go to war with another king and what is needed to accomplish success in doing so. It is an illustrative parabolic point on counting the cost in being a disciple for Jesus, and not a recommendation for all men to become kings so as to go to battle with other kings. In the parable of the Persistent Widow, we cannot suggest that God is an actual unjust judge, but yet God makes a parallel of a story of an unjust judge to illustrate a point about how we are to pray and not give up. So just because the parable does not paint an exact truth of the reality, it was made so as to make a spiritual point. I believe the author of this article takes the point about kings in Luke 14:31 beyond the point of what Jesus actually said. He was not telling us believers to be like kings and to go to war with other kings. That wasn't even his point. The author needs to read the context.

Romans 12:19: “Vengeance is mine.”

This is actually proof that vengeance belongs to God and not us.

Fourth, the motives must be pure.

Sorry, the New Testament does not say that you can fight if your motives are pure. You need to quote the actual New Testament passage that says so.

James 4:1-3: “Why do you fight? Because you have the wrong motives in your heart..

This is not proof for NT violence. It does not commend violence in this passage or chapter.

Hebrews 4:12: “God Judges The Thoughts And Attitudes Of The Heart.”

Yes, this is true, but Jesus will also judge us according to whether or not we receive His words, too (John 12:48). Jesus says if we do not receive those words, those words will judge us on the last day. These words would be all the teachings He taught on Non-Violence. We have to receive these words by Jesus. If not, those words will judge us on the last day. See my long list of verses on New Testament Non-Violence in the OP of this thread.

But, our real defense as a nation rests in the spiritual convictions, character, and commitment of our citizenry.
Psalm 20:7: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God."
2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

This again is Old Testament.

Fifth, the post-war attitude is one of mercy.
Matthew 5:7: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”
John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than his own personal safety is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless he is made free and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
Yes, some things are still worth living and dying for.
Bears still roam the wilderness of our world. May God help us.

Jesus teaches in Matthew 5 to love your enemies and to turn the to other cheek. This goes against retaliating in violence.

 

[SPF]

Well, C.S. Lewis is not an author I would follow or take advice from. He promoted witchcraft in his literary works.

For example: In Lewis' writings we read about how Lucy finds a magic spell book (or a book of incantations, which are also spells) on an island populated by invisible “monopods” in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. She uses this magic spell book to cast a spell, turning the invisible monopods visible.

Well... that's witchcraft!
Casting spells from a spell book is witchcraft!

Just a side comment here for your benefit. I've seen you do this about a dozen times with a dozen different people. This response you gave was how you chose to respond to the comment that CS Lewis was not a pacifist. Do you see anything in your response about Lewis and pacifism? I don't. You have this tendency when someone quotes a respected, historical, educated, person to find something that they believed which you disagree with, quote them in that specific issue that you disagree with, and then suggest that because of that (off topic) issue, that everything else they've ever said or taught or suggested is no longer credible.

Honestly, if you keep doing that, the only person in the end that you'll have to listen to, is yourself. Though, based upon what you write, I suspect that's where you're at anyway, so this may not be new. But it does expose a lack of any sort of higher education on your part that you would actually convince yourself that a fallacious argument like that is worth anything.

You would instantly fail any paper in even a freshman level course if you tried doing something like that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just a side comment here for your benefit. I've seen you do this about a dozen times with a dozen different people. This response you gave was how you chose to respond to the comment that CS Lewis was not a pacifist. Do you see anything in your response about Lewis and pacifism? I don't. You have this tendency when someone quotes a respected, historical, educated, person to find something that they believed which you disagree with, quote them in that specific issue that you disagree with, and then suggest that because of that (off topic) issue, that everything else they've ever said or taught or suggested is no longer credible.

Honestly, if you keep doing that, the only person in the end that you'll have to listen to, is yourself. Though, based upon what you write, I suspect that's where you're at anyway, so this may not be new. But it does expose a lack of any sort of higher education on your part that you would actually convince yourself that a fallacious argument like that is worth anything.

You would instantly fail any paper in even a freshman level course if you tried doing something like that.

First, have you never in human history as a believer tried to discredit a belief by pointing to another who holds to false beliefs, or to another religion that is anti-biblical (that is tied to that wrong belief)?

If you haven't, it is pretty common to do so among even respected and educated Christians.

Second, it is not to say that authors or even certain church groups cannot be right sometimes. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut. But C.S. Lewis (while respected amongst the Christian community) has either chosen to turn a blind eye to his promotion of witchcraft within his books, or he simply do not see it as a problem (writing it off as okay because it is fantasy). But I imagine if C.S. Lewis wrote about a fantasy world where inappropriate contentagraphy was accepted as normal, he would not be a respected author. Yet, both inappropriate contentography and witchcraft are equally sinful and bad and God hates both of these sins. It is because our culture has accepted witchcraft as normal or okay (as long as it is fantasy). The fact that the author promotes something so obviously sinful means he is not qualified to discern what the Bible properly says in every case. This is not to say that everything he says is rubbish or untrue, but it simply means that he is not the best go to source on matters of the Bible because of his promotion of witchcraft in his written works.

I also was not the one who brought up the author.
You did. You used him as a source for defending against the NT teaching on Non-Violence. But we should be looking solely to Bible to defend our belief here and not the quoting of respected authors. My verses in the OP should be the topic of discussion here because they are the basis or foundation for the New Testament teaching on Non-Violence.

Side Note 1:

I also did not just write a post to you about discrediting C.S. Lewis as the sole basis for my position alone, either. I did reply to you with Scripture in return, too. This is where our discussion should ultimately stem from and not respected authors.

Side Note 2:

Oh, and by the way: C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia is required reading among certain classes of witches. Why? Because it promotes witchcraft. Lucy casts spells and it is considered perfectly okay in Lewi's world. Thus, in my opinion, he is not qualified as a #1 go to source on matters of the Bible. Witchcraft is clearly condemned in the Bible. Jesus says that even a mind sin (fantasy) of looking upon a woman in lust is the same as the act of adultery. So to fantasize about witchcraft can be just as deadly as practicing it.

 

[SPF]

First, have you never in human history as a believer tried to discredit a belief by pointing to another who holds to false beliefs, or to another religion that is anti-biblical (that is tied to that wrong belief)?
If you haven't, it is pretty common to do so among even respected and educated Christians.

Hah! Instead of recognizing that fallacious reasoning is wrong and is not an appropriate way to argue, you doubled down!

No, I have never tried to discredit topic A by Author X by suggesting that because Author X holds a position on Topic B that I disagree with, it therefore makes his position on topic A wrong. And no, it's absolutely NOT a "respected" method of argumentation among educated Christians. It's fallacious. Do you know what that means? All you just did was scream that you literally don't have an education.

And I have $1,000 that says you can't quote a credible theologian who thinks that it is a valid method of argumentation.

The problem with arm-chair theologians is that you really think you know it all. It's people like you that end up being the next Charles Russell.

And you're of course mistaken about Lewis in that he did not promote the practice of witchcraft. If he did, then so does the Bible. There's a difference between containing and promoting. You clearly lack the discernment to understand the difference.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hah! Instead of recognizing that fallacious reasoning is wrong and is not an appropriate way to argue, you doubled down!

No, I have never tried to discredit topic A by Author X by suggesting that because Author X holds a position on Topic B that I disagree with, it therefore makes his position on topic A wrong. And no, it's absolutely NOT a "respected" method of argumentation among educated Christians. It's fallacious. Do you know what that means? All you just did was scream that you literally don't have an education.

And I have $1,000 that says you can't quote a credible theologian who thinks that it is a valid method of argumentation.

The problem with arm-chair theologians is that you really think you know it all. It's people like you that end up being the next Charles Russell.

And you're of course mistaken about Lewis in that he did not promote the practice of witchcraft. If he did, then so does the Bible. There's a difference between containing and promoting. You clearly lack the discernment to understand the difference.

Unless you believe the true church today is for Ecumenism, I highly doubt that respected evangelical Christians throughout history haven't spoke out against others and or their wrong beliefs.

Besides, you are doing the very thing that you appear to be judging me for. Look at what you just did as an example. You just slandered me in being like the next Charles Taze Russell. Yet, I am not in agreement with many of the Jehovah's Witnesses wrong beliefs, or their cult like agenda. In other words, your false slander against me is like the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. It's neither nice, true, or good. Please deal with the verses on the NT teaching of Non-Violence instead of ad hominems.

As for C.S. Lewis promoting witchcraft:

Yes, he does promote witchcraft because he never corrects the wrong actions of witchcraft within his novel series. The Bible does not do that, dear sir. The Bible may mention witchcraft at times (with no condemnation in the immediate context) at times, but there are plenty of places where the Bible does condemn witchcraft. C.S. Lewis has never done this. C.S. Lewis has never condemned witchcraft (in general) in his books. Magic to him is kind of like the force of neutrality like the force in Star Wars. He does not condemn all forms of witchcraft as being bad in his books. The Bible (as a whole) condemns witchcraft in general.

Anyways, peace, and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[SPF]

Unless you believe the true church today is for Ecumenism, I highly doubt that respected evangelical Christians throughout history haven't spoke out against others and or their wrong beliefs.

Christians all throughout history have absolutely spoken out against others and their wrong beliefs! The Early Church Councils did that very thing, and we are all the better for it!

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Are you aware of what a straw-man fallacy is? You should look into it so as to avoid it in the future.

To help, what you did was not speak out against another Christian for a wrong belief, what you did was assert that we should disregard everything that a Christian said about Topic A because you disagree with what they said about Topic B. That, is what's wrong. That, is what nobody with an education would do. It's typical among arm chair theologians though.

Besides, you are doing the very thing that you appear to be judging me for. Look at what you just did as an example. You just slandered me in being like the next Charles Taze Russell. Yet, I am not in any way in agreement with many of the Jehovah's Witnesses wrong beliefs, or their cult like agenda. In other words, your false slander against me is like the pot calling the kettle black, my friend. It's neither nice, true, or good. Please deal with the verses instead of ad hominems.

I don't expect you do align yourself with even 25% of the teachings of the Watchtower organization. Nor was I attempting to suggest so. You seem to once again, miss the point.

Charles Russell had questions about Christianity as a young man. Those questions were not answered. Personally, I think the local church and older Christians around him failed in this aspect. He walked away from Christianity as a young teenager.

He eventually, due to no education, no accountability from older, wiser Christians, was misled and deceived. He then, with no education, and no understanding of Church history and the foundation of our belief system, read Scripture and walked away with erroneous beliefs and eventually led others astray.

I said that you remind me of him because the fringe positions you hold, lead me to believe that you most likely rely solely upon yourself as your own spiritual authority. This is dangerous, as you are fallen. Education isn't everything. But it is valuable, and it is helpful. Ironically, it's the one's that aren't educated that end up being the most prideful and sure of their beliefs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Christians all throughout history have absolutely spoken out against others and their wrong beliefs! The Early Church Councils did that very thing, and we are all the better for it!

But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Are you aware of what a straw-man fallacy is? You should look into it so as to avoid it in the future.

To help, what you did was not speak out against another Christian for a wrong belief, what you did was assert that we should disregard everything that a Christian said about Topic A because you disagree with what they said about Topic B. That, is what's wrong. That, is what nobody with an education would do. It's typical among arm chair theologians though.

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Anyways, to get down to business:

Just because folks call themselves Christians these days does not mean anything. Jehovah's Witnesses identify as Christians. That does not mean they are Christians just because they say so. Again, C.S. Lewis promoted witchcraft in his books and he never condemned witchcraft as a whole like the Bible does. This to me is just as dangerous of a teaching as the WatchTower Society. How you cannot see this is beyond me. But you are free to believe as you wish.

I don't expect you do align yourself with even 25% of the teachings of the Watchtower organization. Nor was I attempting to do so. You seem to once again, miss the point.

I cannot read your mind. You just slandered me with no clear explanation (Which is not nice).

Charles Russell had questions about Christianity as a young man. Those questions were not answered. Personally, I think the local church and older Christians around him failed in this aspect. He walked away from Christianity as a young teenager.

He eventually, due to no education, no accountability from older, wiser Christians, was misled and deceived. He then, with no education, and no understanding of Church history and the foundation of our belief system, read Scripture and walked away with erroneous beliefs and eventually led others astray.

I said that you remind me of him because the fringe positions you hold, lead me to believe that you most likely rely solely upon yourself as your own spiritual authority. This is dangerous, as you are fallen. Education isn't everything. But it is valuable, and it is helpful. Ironically, it's the one's that aren't educated that end up being the most prideful and sure of their beliefs.

First, it would have been helpful if you clarified this point in the beginning. Again, I cannot read your mind. Otherwise it just comes off as just throwing around ad hominems (Because you do not want to deal with the text I presented in the OP).

Second, there are several problems with your reasoning here. You do not truly know the mind of Charles Taze Russell and what truly went through his mind. You are not the Lord to know his secret thoughts and motivations to begin to judge his error in not accepting the truth of Scripture. So you are assuming a lot. You also do not know all of what I believe to make a judgment about me, either.

Three, you assume the popular way of evangelical Christianity today is always the correct way (implying I am not always aligning with popular evangelical churches). But is the popular way always the right way? Jesus said, “narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14).

2 Timothy 3:1-5 says,

1 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”​

Again, you make the issue about me instead of dealing with the verses. I believe this shows the weakness of your position, friend. If you continue to slander me, I will simply ignore your posts. Please deal with the verses in the OP, and stop making it about me.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[SPF]

Just because folks call themselves Christians these days does not mean anything. Jehovah's Witnesses identify as Christians. That does not mean they are Christians just because they say so. Again, C.S. Lewis promoted witchcraft in his books and he never condemned witchcraft as a whole like the Bible does. This to me is just as dangerous of a teaching as the WatchTower Society. How you cannot see this is beyond me. But you are free to believe as you wish.

Are you saying that because you believe that CS Lewis promoted witchcraft in his Narnia book series that he was in fact, not actually a Christian?

Three, you assume the popular way of evangelical Christianity today is always the correct way (implying I am not always aligning with popular evangelical churches). But is the popular way always the right way? Jesus said, “narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matthew 7:14).

You've specifically used the phrase "evangelical Christianity" a number of times now. Have I said something that would give the impression that I personally take on that label? I don't recall doing so. Sounds like you're the one doing the majority of assuming around here.

But if you want me to engage on the actual topic, I can do that.

How do you feel that self-defense or defending one's family fits into your narrative of non-violence?

Example, I come home to find my front door broken in and someone in the middle of physically assaulting my wife. Would I be sinning if I tried to physically intervene and stop them? Or should I sit down and start praying that God would send a gust of wind to separate them?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not trying to be dis-respectful, but this is not living how the real world works!

Ever seen this movie based on a true story?

Please take note that I am not in agreement with many of the beliefs in Seventh Day Adventism. Granted, (while I do not agree with them): The Seventh Day Adventists do believe in many biblical doctrines, they believe in the Trinity, and Non-Violence, etc.

Would you agree that everything you posted here, outside of quoting Scripture directly, is nothing more than your fallible opinion, and is subject to error?

Molon Labe!

Can you explain to me the verses that you think I misquoted incorrectly?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But if you want me to engage on the actual topic, I can do that.

How do you feel that self-defense or defending one's family fits into your narrative of non-violence?

Example, I come home to find my front door broken in and someone in the middle of physically assaulting my wife. Would I be sinning if I tried to physically intervene and stop them? Or should I sit down and start praying that God would send a gust of wind to separate them?

I want you to deal with the verses in the OP, and not fallible human opinion or thinking. If God's Word teaches Non-Violence in the New Testament (as I believe the Word does), then that is the basis for our belief and not spinning up what if scenarios. So I am asking you to explain the verses in the OP. How do they work from your viewpoint? Why does the Bible appear to be dead silent on retaliating in violence in the New Testament?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

there is a massive different between living by the sword and picking one up once in your life for that one moment you needed to defend yourself. come on don't be a tard.

like i said God has an army, do you think his army has no weapons? no they are the most powerful weapons that ever will be.

don't be a tard that lets his wife get pummeled by a 2x4 because you are tarded and just pray when all you had to do was get something beforehand incase something like this happened to you one day.

God is shaking his head in disbelief you guys are even talking about this like you shouldn't be able to defend yourselves. unbelievable.

Some folks assume that Non-Violent believers should just stand by and do nothing while a violent situation happens upon them? This is simply not the case.

Believers have many non-violent options available to them. They can run, hold the attacker (so as to let your loved ones run), employ aikido (martial arts that seeks to prevent injury by the attacker), pray, rebuke them in the name of Jesus Christ, etc.

Also, see my post #235, as well.

Again, here is the teaching in the New Testament that folks need to address (Opinions and or human experience is irrelevant if it contradicts Scripture).

New Testament Scripture That Supports Non-Violence:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Matthew 26:52-53
52 Then Jesus told him, "Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.
53 Or do you think that I cannot call on My Father, and He will provide Me at once with more than 12 legions of angels?

Matthew 5:44-45
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luke 6:27-29
27 But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also;

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, Do not make use of force against an evil man; but to him who gives you a blow on the right side of your face let the left be turned. -Bible in Basic English

Luke 12:22 And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on.

Matthew 7:12 In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

1 Peter 3:8-9
8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.
9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.

Romans 12:17-21
17 Never repay anyone evil for evil. Take thought for what is right and gracious and proper in the sight of everyone. - AMP
18 and do your best to live at peace with everyone. - CEV
19 Christian brothers, never pay back someone for the bad he has done to you. Let the anger of God take care of the other person. - NLV for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. - KJV

1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.

1 Peter 2:21-23
21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

2 Corinthians 10:4 We do not use those things to fight with that the world uses. We use the things God gives to fight with and they have power. Those things God gives to fight with destroy the strong-places of the devil.

Luke 3:14 Do violence to no man,

John 8:7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matthew 10:28-31
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will.
30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

James 3:18 The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace.

Romans 10:15. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace.

Ephesians 6:14 Stand therefore . . . having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

Ephesians 4:1-3
1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord

Romans 16:20 The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brethren ... be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus

Galatians 1:13 - For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.

2 Timothy 3:12 - Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution

1 Peter 4:12-16
12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind...

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

1 Corinthians 13:3 - and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing.

Philippians 1:21 - For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Revelation 13:10 - He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Popular Common Objections:

Luke 22:36 is a popular objection because Jesus tells his disciples to buy a sword.

Here is a great article explaining this one in great detail.

ClearBibleAnswers.org - WHY did Jesus ask His disciples to BUY A SWORD? He said: “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one”. (Luke 22:36)

As for John the Baptist's silence on not telling the soldiers to quite the military in Luke 3:10-14 (Which is similar to Jesus's encounter with the Roman Centurion - Luke 7:1-10):

Check out this article here:

Did John the Baptist tell repentant soldiers to leave the military?

As for Jesus not telling the Roman Centurion not to quite the military or to do no more violence in Luke 7:1-10:

Well, you have to realize that salvation did not go out unto the Gentiles yet. They first preached the gospel to Israel first.

As for Romans 13:4 that says,

...for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

This is talking about how unbelieving authorities or nations (like a government's leaders, armies, and police) who are God's ministers to execute wrath or judgment on those who do evil. This is not talking about believers because it is telling the reader to be subject unto this higher powers (Romans 13:1). It does not tell the reader that they are these higher powers. The reader that Paul is writing to are believers (not the higher powers who are in authority whereby we are to be subject unto). In fact, God used both Assyria and Babylon to punish His people. So we can see that these nations were God's ministers of justice (Which would be in line with what is said in Romans 13).

 

[SPF]

I want you to deal with the verses in the OP, and not fallible human opinion or thinking. If God's Word teaches Non-Resistance in the New Testament (as I believe the Word does), then that is the basis for our belief and not spinning up what if scenarios. So I am asking you to explain the verses in the OP. How do they work from your viewpoint? Why does the Bible appear to be dead silent on retaliating in violence in the New Testament?

All Scripture requires interpretation. Once we do that, we derive principles, and then we can get application.

You believe that Scripture teaches non-resistance. Therefore, what I'm asking you is to take your belief in what Scriptures teaches regarding non-resistance, and apply it to a real life scenario. It's quite simple. We can then move on from there.

How do you feel that self-defense or defending one's family fits into your narrative of non-violence?

Example, I come home to find my front door broken in and someone in the middle of physically assaulting my wife. Would I be sinning if I tried to physically intervene and stop them? Or should I sit down and start praying that God would send a gust of wind to separate them?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All Scripture requires interpretation. Once we do that, we derive principles, and then we can get application.

You believe that Scripture teaches non-resistance. Therefore, what I'm asking you is to take your belief in what Scriptures teaches regarding non-resistance, and apply it to a real life scenario. It's quite simple. We can then move on from there.

How do you feel that self-defense or defending one's family fits into your narrative of non-violence?

Example, I come home to find my front door broken in and someone in the middle of physically assaulting my wife. Would I be sinning if I tried to physically intervene and stop them? Or should I sit down and start praying that God would send a gust of wind to separate them?

Jesus did not have a problem with living a Non-Violent life. He was obedient unto death. Granted, I do not think God calls all believers to be killed, but Non-Violence is a part of the package of the teachings given to us by Christ and His followers. Again, if what you say is true, then you should be able to deal with the text in what it says and not what if scenarios. Jesus and His followers were persecuted and we do not see one instance on where they fought back with God's approval. You think the life of a believer needs to always be preserved (Which ignores persecution and death for standing up for our faith sometimes). In addition, there are many testimonies of believers who successfully lived out their Non-Violence. Post #235 would be one example of many. Besides, not all believers in human history and today are faced with violent scenarios.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The problem with folks thinking that they can use violent force in retaliation as a believer is that the New Testament does not teach it. On the contrary, it teaches the opposite.