I first ran across Jay Beaman's Pentecostal Pacifism at North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls. It was his master's thesis. Early Pentecostal Pacifism
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In the library on 'Christian Pacifism? I can support that, IF, that is what God called you to do. What I cannot support is the departure from what He calls others to do. Per your link,I was in the library working on my own book on Christian pacifism. About | christianpacifism
You didn't happen to be associated with A.L Williams years ago did you?I am the soldier of Christ
Perhaps you should be posting in the Baptist forum -Library at N. Am. Baptist Seminary.
"I am the soldier of Christ: it is not lawful for me to fight.” --Martin of Tours
The consistent witness of faithful Christians from the beginning.
Romans-12-13-in-context-sword
wordpress.com/2016/12/01/early-christian-quotes/
The topic is the book, Pentecostal Pacifism.Perhaps you should be posting in the Baptist forum -
Sorry, never heard of him.You didn't happen to be associated with A.L Williams years ago did you?
Great! Now back to my earlier referencing a gift in some of our brothers, ,", , we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life"
But, the Christian servant above helps us to "not be overcome by evil". Some of us are equipped to "avenge", some of us are committed to "resist not". Are you saying the Church is to abandon "God's servant"?Resist not evil,” (Matt. 5:39); Love your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44): etc.
Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.From the book:
Assemblies of God
Resolution Concerning the Attitude of the General Council of the Assemblies of God Toward any Military Service which Involves the Actual Participation in the Destruction of Human Life.
While recognizing human Government as of divine ordination and affirming our unswerving loyalty to the Government of the United States, nevertheless we are constrained to define our position with reference to the taking of human life.
WHEREAS, in the Constitutional Resolution adopted at the Hot Springs General Council, April 1-10, 1914, we plainly declare the Holy Inspired Scriptures to be the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, and
WHEREAS the Scriptures deal plainly with the obligations and relations of humanity, setting forth the principles of “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14); and
WHEREAS we, as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, believe in implicit obedience to the Divine commands and precepts which instruct us to “Follow peace with all men,” (Heb. 12:14); “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exodus 20:13); “Resist not evil,” (Matt. 5:39); Love your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44): etc. and
WHEREAS these and other Scriptures have always been accepted and interpreted by our churches as prohibiting Christians from shedding blood or taking human life;
THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.
Weekly Evangel, August 4, 1917, p. 6.
"Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God."--the Bottom LineInteresting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.
From Wiki " The official pacifist position remained unchanged until 1967 when the denomination affirmed "the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant, a noncombatant, or a conscientious objector".[64] This was the culmination of a process begun during World War I, when it was unpopular to hold antiwar views, in which AG adherents questioned their denomination's pacifist stance.[65]
I think they have it right now leaving it to be an individual decision though as a whole most churches support the military and veterans wholeheartedly which to me is also a good thing.
This was at the height of the Vietnam War protests and the Patriotic backlash.Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.
From Wiki " The official pacifist position remained unchanged until 1967 when the denomination affirmed "the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant, a noncombatant, or a conscientious objector"....
Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.From the book:
Assemblies of God
", , WHEREAS these and other Scriptures have always been accepted and interpreted by our churches as prohibiting Christians from shedding blood or taking human life;
THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.
Weekly Evangel, August 4, 1917, p. 6."
Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.
From the AOG website on the Extensiveness of Pacifism:
CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1-3, 2015)BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE“, , scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.”
To what extent does “punish evil” from AOGs citation of Romans 13 involve? Of course, but the use of instruments of personal harm to secure peace, including “death” (Matthew 26:52).
The Word of God is the Bottom Line.Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.
From the AOG website on the Extensiveness of Pacifism:
CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1-3, 2015)BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE“, , scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.”
To what extent does “punish evil” from AOGs citation of Romans 13 involve? Of course, but the use of instruments of personal harm to secure peace, including “death” (Matthew 26:52).https://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/spurgeons-top-eight-lost-quotes-on-christians-war/
Could you elaborate? I don’t understand your position on the full measure of His grace?So, Any AOG care or have an interest in what was once fundamental to their beliefs?
[I have attended AOG weekly in past for several years, including while in Quaker Seminary]
I maintain agreement with God's specific callings. If He equips His own "severally", why would I want to remain partial to the universal? Some, intensely passive, some harmoniously minister public tranquility, if necessary, by force.