The 1913 dictionary says:
n. 1. the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable.
2. The belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration.
Source:
pacifism | Definition of pacifism by Webster's Online Dictionary
Webster's Dictionary:
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes specifically. Refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds; For Quakers pacifism is a major tenet of belief.
2:
An attitude or policy of nonresistance; Efforts toward pacifism and civil rights.
Source:
Definition of PACIFISM
As for war or violence:
I believe God in the Old Testament had used His people (Israel) to go to war against enemy nations. I also believe Jesus will return and will destroy all nations that will come up against Him. I also believe that while God does not want the bride of Christ (Christians) to go to war under the New Covenant, God does use the police and military for His greater plan for good. Romans 13 comes to mind. For unbelieving governments can be God's ministers of righteousness to execute justice on those who do evil. This does not mean they are saved, but that they are an arm of justice for God. For God even used an enemy nation (Assyria) as a rod of correction against His own people (Israel) because they were being wicked.
Popular Christianity of America (and the world) is not the Christianity of Christ or of the first 300 years of Church history. But, since Constantine's merging of Church and state and Augustines heretical doctrine of Just War to bolster the ranks of an increasingly Christianized Roman army Christians have adopted an attitude of killing that never existed in the first 300 years as modeled by Christ.
With the mindset of violence and murder that has been ingrained, for many hundreds of year, in the hearts of modern Christians, the New Testament cannot be read without finding justification for all of their evil deeds. The truth is that there is no justification for violence, war, or condemning the enemies of society unless that truth is filtered through the warped idea that Christ has changed His mind on the issue of loving our enemies.
The answer to the problem is proper exegesis. The most common problem is that we read into the New Testament things that are not there. You cannot use the O.T. to interpret the N.T., it is the other way around. Today, a favorite method is to deliberately neglect the nonviolent nature of Jesus and of the love that He taught to His disciples as being the divine way of the Kingdom. Many Christian Churches try to explain away Jesus’ teaching of nonviolent love by demanding that He did not really mean what He said, others just ignore it or replace it with some philosophical blather which they then raise to an equivalent status to the teaching of Jesus, e.g.,
“It is a God-given natural right to kill those who are trying to kill you. Killing other human beings is a tragic necessity in the present state of a fallen humanity with its immoral societies. To do what is natural or necessary cannot be sinful when done in good Christian conscience!”
With this strategy, Jesus’ teaching does not even get a hearing, except to be pridefully dismissed as simplistic or stupid. He is allowed to be considered only after the decision to kill has been well implanted and accepted. To present the Bad News of the gun you must first put down the Good News of the Gospel.
But, getting back to exegesis, what should be our proper view of the O.T.?
Here are some N.T. Scriptures that show us how to view the Old Testament.
“In the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word . . . .” Hebrews 1:1-3.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.’” Hebrews 8:7-9
“Therefore,
He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance,
because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Where a will (i.e. last will and testament)
exists, 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.” Hebrews 9:15-17.
Jesus says five times,
“You have heard that it was said . . . .” “But I tell you . . . .” Matthew 5:27,28a; 31,32a; 33,34a; 38, 39a; 43, 44a. Where were these things
“heard . . . said”? Of course, the answer is in the Old Testament Law of Moses, but with an authoritative move Jesus re-writes His will and closes the door on anyone wanting to use the old document to prove a point. With the declaration of “But I tell you . . .” He established Himself as the sole authority, maker of the will, and interpreter of everything that has come before Him. No other person has any right to overrule anything that has been spoken by Jesus or to build any other structure on the foundation of His sure words. When the Father’s Son speaks He leaves no room for presumption or creative thinking; His plain and simple words carry the weight of God the Father Himself; and the Father says, “Listen to Him.”
Jesus said, “
My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:19-21.
There is no question that one side or the other of this argument is wrong, we cannot have it both ways. We can follow the broad way of conformity, but the
“way is narrow.” We can take the easy way with no controversy or conflict, but the
“gate is difficult and strait.” We can place our bets with the fast and the strong, but the
“meek will inherit the earth.” All the advantage is with the majority, but
“very few will enter in.” We can appeal to the celebrities of the Reformation: Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin or we can search-out those who refused to defend themselves who held on tight to that scarlet thread weaving its way through blood, suffering, persecution, and loneliness, from Calvary to our doorstep and bids us come and die. Yes, one of us is wrong. If non-resistant Christians are wrong they have lost nothing by living a sacrificial life, if popular Christianity is wrong??????????. The first coming of our Lord was like a defenseless Lamb and it is that Lamb that we are to imitate while fulfilling His mission and not the Lion of His second coming.
All of your arguments for violence are a sinking ship and cannot hold water when seen properly. There are no N.T. arguments that will justify killing, judging, or condemning your enemy.
