Did Christians kill Red Indians in America?

[Thomas White]

I remember a Christian giving his testimony on another website. He said he was a part of something like SWAT. He was about to shoot and kill one of his targets that was considered a threat, and something prevented him in pulling the trigger. He later came to talk with his target that was captured and this person in whom he was going to shoot told him about Jesus Christ. Now this event led to his either immediate acceptance of the Lord as His Savior or it led to his eventual acceptance of the Lord. But the point here is that if he shot the guy, and killed him, it would have destroyed God's plan in reaching trying to reach this guy who was in SWAT or something like SWAT.

Do you think a mortal man can destroy God's plan? Can the Creator of the Universe, the author of all existence, be derailed by the whims of a human?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you think a mortal man can destroy God's plan? Can the Creator of the Universe, the author of all existence, be derailed by the whims of a human?

I believe it is a God story. It was His testimony in coming to Christ and I believe it has great merit because Jesus and His followers clearly taught Non-Resistance and not self defense by the use of physical violence in the New Testament. Sure, Jesus will return and He will use physical violence to destroy the wicked nations who will come up against Him, and His saints will follow Him, but these are disembodied saints who lived out their faith already.

We are called to walk by faith. How do you get faith? Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Most Christians I have encountered are not hearing the Word of God but they are doing their own thing and thinking their own way. They have Burger King faith. It's Yahweh and not your own way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus did not say “you shall resist non-violently”. He said “you shall not resist”.

That's an oxymoron. To not resist means non-violence. To disagree is to disagree how that word is defined in dictionaries.

Here are a few definitions at some dictionaries just in case you don't believe me.

Source:
Definition of NONRESISTANCE

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

And here is the definition at an Etymology website (i.e. a website on the origin of a words).

Source:
nonresistance | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Let us all not go here.
Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

We are not talking about the liberty we have in Christ when it comes to eating clean animals vs. unclean animals or in worshiping on a certain day in regards to the Old Law. Technically speaking the Old Law (i.e. the 613 Laws of Moses) is no more. So while one has a liberty to do certain things still in the Old Law, they are not mandatory under the New Covenant. That is the context of what Paul was talking about in Romans 14 and it was not the teaching of our Lord on Non-Resistance.

Let us assume that each one is sincere in the scripture they have presented, even if we disagree. I can see we even disgree on the context of "we war not against flesh and blood".
To you it is a slam dunk to what you believe, yet to me it is equally so. To me my enemy is in spiritual battle against the gospel. It does not speak to men which desire to kill you for any other purpose. Let us not judge or accuse one another, but rather have patience and reasoning assuming they are sincere.

We can be sincere but we can be sincerely wrong. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). We cannot build our faith outside of the Bible. In order to justify self defense by the use of violent force we need to establish that with New Testament Scripture. Seeing folks do not really have any good case to make on this topic, they are going outside of God's Word and claiming it as truth (When it is not).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is a two way street. I could put the same question to you. Show me in scripture where Jesus addressed anyone attacking the apostles for any other reason than what they preached? They were attempting to silence them. And it was done in a manner that had the appearance of "legality". You don't see the apostles being accosted simply because someone is desiring to kill someone.

You say that the Bible is silent on the topic of violence done against us outside of the faith. But whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). So there should never be a time we deem a situation that is outside of the faith. All things work together for good to those who love God (Romans 8:28). Is not all things in our life working together for good a part of our faith? Is not how we react to any given situation a part of our faith?

Anyways, there are verses on Non-resistance that are not clear that it is a person persecuting us for our faith. We are given instructions in how we are to behave if violence does come upon us. Jesus makes it clear in John 18:36 that His kingdom is not of this world and if his kingdom were of this world... his servants would fight. This appears to be a blanket statement and not a situational one. For if Pilate discovered that his servants (His disciples) fought in other situations then they would not be his servants then. Jesus defines His servants as not fighting. This is how Pilate would have known Christ's servants. Also, in Luke 3:14, John the baptist tells soldiers to do no violence to no man. John the baptist is not saying they should stop being a soldier, but he is telling them to do no violence as a soldier. So this soldier can continue to be a soldier and try to do no violence. Tough words to carry out and it would no doubt prevent them from serving eventually as a soldier. But the point is that he was told to do not violence being a soldier and not as a preacher, or pastor, etc.

No, not by mine. Soldiers or Government officials should not be killing anyone simply because they hate them. People do not defend themselves because they hate them. There may be those in those positions using their position to do so. But God knows their heart.
David was a man dearly loved, a man after God's own heart, Yet he was not allowed to build God's house for bloodshed. So Solomon was to build it. David in no way was unsaved. The same is true of the priesthood. They were to lead in the battles, but were not engage in the bloodshed. These things are examples and for patterns. This is about offices, and positions established by God. Neither David nor his soldiers, doing wrong. Not all are apostles, evangelists ,pastors, teachers either.
Abraham, and those in league slaughtered kings, to rescue Lot. No wrong there either. This before the law of Moses.

I understand that under the Old Covenant things were different.
So yes, I understand that at one time, war and self defense was justified and it does not mean they hated others, but it was simply a call of what God's Word taught at that time. But we are under a New Covenant with New Commands. Things are different now. We don't sacrifice animals anymore and or have to circumcise men anymore. I believe God now calls us to higher form of love under the New Covenant. But as I said, most do not heed this call because it is too difficult for them to accept.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

To you. And yes, I understand about fighting each other before Europeans arrive. I think most of the Indian's probably seen missionaries as akin to those taking their land. It was a different situation for them, than with the apostles etc. But all people were much more savage historically. Not just Europians, or Indians. It is just hard to make a comparison IMO.

It depends on the tribes the missionaries were involved with. The Northeast Tribes saw the missionaries as weak people who would not fight for what they believed, but willingly were
tortured and died for what they believed. The Iroquois saw this as a weakness in the French,
which is why they sided with the British, who never assimilated with native culture. They
saw the English as being strong because they kept their culture and refused to be like Indians.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Some of the Puritans did justify the colonial fights against Native American tribes by claiming the natives were demons or the such. In other cases, they didn't go to such lengths to justify their invasion.

The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth, lived peacefully with the Native Tribes for over 50 years.

It wasn't until Metacomet AKA King Phillip, traded away his tribal lands for English goods, especially muskets, he realize the mistake he had made and wanted to trade back. The settlers refused and he attacked and slaughtered them.

 

[ralliann]

It depends on the tribes the missionaries were involved with. The Northeast Tribes saw the missionaries as weak people who would not fight for what they believed, but willingly were
tortured and died for what they believed.

Yes that also has been a thought I had, It is not a thing of righteousness to men. I think maybe this idea could be applied to Christians by non Christians as well. I don't think it would attract people to Christ.

The Iroquois saw this as a weakness in the French,
which is why they sided with the British, who never assimilated with native culture. They
saw the English as being strong because they kept their culture and refused to be like Indians.

Interesting. I don't think the Gospel focuses on this issue, it does not because it is about a heavenly kingdom which we war for it's advancement. Jesus and the Apostles were not a threat to the earthly rulers, because that wasn't what it was about IMO. I think Abraham rescuing Lot is a good example of violence being used for rescue, not to set up the kingdom God promised him. He would take none of the booty from the slaughter. He was looking for God to enrich him, and bring about his kingdom.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Interesting. I don't think the Gospel focuses on this issue, it does not because it is about a heavenly kingdom which we war for it's advancement. Jesus and the Apostles were not a threat to the earthly rulers, because that wasn't what it was about IMO. I think Abraham rescuing Lot is a good example of violence being used for rescue, not to set up the kingdom God promised him. He would take none of the booty from the slaughter. He was looking for God to enrich him, and bring about his kingdom.

But Lot's situation took place in the Old Covenant. We cannot build a theology on the Old if the New Covenant teachings appear to contradict the Old way of doing things. Christ's death began the New Covenant and with it the New commands and teachings that come with that.

Hebrews 7:12 says that Law has changed.
We can see many of these changes taking place even before Christ's death with His teachings on the Sermon on the Mount (See: Matthew 5-7).

 

[ralliann]

You say that the Bible is silent on the topic of violence done against us outside of the faith. But whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). So there should never be a time we deems a situation that is outside of the faith. All things work together for good to those who love God (Romans 8:28). Is not all things in our life working together for good a part of our faith? Is not how we react to any given situation a part of our faith?

Anyways, there are verses on Non-resistance that are not clear that it is a person persecuting us for our faith. We are given instructions in how we are to behave if violence does come upon us. Jesus makes it clear in John 18:36 that His kingdom is not of this world and if his kingdom were of this world... his servants would fight. This appears to be a blanket statement and not a situational one.

I am not sure what you mean by "situational" and "blanket". I assure you I am not trying to be snarky in saying...The situation is a New covenant....And also, If I truly am convinced I am able to defend myself, I am doing so in faith. But mainly It is this....All scripture is profitable for doctrine and learning. Abraham was not under the law of the Sinai covenant , nor was he a party to it. We as Christians walk in the steps of faith which he walked. He was not using his military might and wealth to establish an earthly worldly kingdom. Which kingdom Abraham sought we likewise look for and seek to advance. God has already put earthly rulers for earthly kingdoms.
As you have quoted..."Jesus makes it clear in John 18:36 that His kingdom is not of this world and if his kingdom were of this world..." his servants would fight.
Bingo! His kingdom. We are not a threat to earthly rulers. we Are not called to set up an earthly worldly kingdom. We are called to advance the kingdom in the hearts and minds of men. That is why the wicked will always accuse us of such. The old covenant established an earthly worldly kingdom. To that they were called. They therefore could see us as the enemy, in like kind. But we are not.
So we walk like Abraham.

For if Pilate discovered that his servants (His disciples) fought in other situations then they would not be his servants then.

You see, it is about rulers needing to have no concern of us attempting to build an earthly kingdom, we are not a threat to this world and this life. We are going about to establish the kingdom in the heats and minds of men. It is spiritual. Those that are against Christ will indeed do all kinds of things and say all kinds of things against us to doubt that we are harmless to worldly rulers.

Jesus defines His servants as not fighting. This is how Pilate would have known Christ's servants.

Yes, yes. Who were fighting? Jerusalem was destroyed because of the Jewish revolt against Rome. They fought for the earthly kingdom to be established again that God promised them. Not only a mass revolt in 70 Ad, but later as well in the bar kochba revolt. We in Christ know it is a kingdom God himself brings about. We are merely making citizens of it now in their hearts and minds.
We are not seen as a threat to anyone as Christians, when we merely defend ourselves, our families, neighbours from Criminals as individuals. Nor doing the same on a mass scale through earthly warfare under our Government. We as Christians are simply not a threat for an earthly worldly kingdom. That is like Abraham. He took nothing from any of the kings booty for himself. Nothing. His goal was not to go to war or kill for the kingdom God promised him. The earthly form of that, for a shadow and example was to the fourth Generation of his seed i.e. Israel his firstborn son.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not sure what you mean by "situational" and "blanket". I assure you I am not trying to be snarky in saying...The situation is a New covenant....And also, If I truly am convinced I am able to defend myself, I am doing so in faith. But mainly It is this....All scripture is profitable for doctrine and learning. Abraham was not under the law of the Sinai covenant , nor was he a party to it. We as Christians walk in the steps of faith which he walked. He was not using his military might and wealth to establish an earthly worldly kingdom. Which kingdom Abraham sought we likewise look for and seek to advance. God has already put earthly rulers for earthly kingdoms.
As you have quoted..."Jesus makes it clear in John 18:36 that His kingdom is not of this world and if his kingdom were of this world..." his servants would fight.
Bingo! His kingdom. We are not a threat to earthly rulers. we Are not called to set up an earthly worldly kingdom. We are called to advance the kingdom in the hearts and minds of men. That is why the wicked will always accuse us of such. The old covenant established an earthly worldly kingdom. To that they were called. They therefore could see us as the enemy, in like kind. But we are not.
So we walk like Abraham.

You did not quote Scripture to how you are correct in your interpretation on John 18:36 making an allowance for attacking back in physical violence on matters not regarding the faith (as if there is such a thing as matters not dealing with the faith for a believer).

As for your point about Abraham:

Well, while we may have faith in God's grace like Abraham in looking to a Savior, and trusting in God, Abraham was not under the New Covenant like we are. So Abraham's instructions were different.

You see, it is about rulers needing to have no concern of us attempting to build an earthly kingdom, we are not a threat to this world and this life. We are going about to establish the kingdom in the heats and minds of men. It is spiritual. Those that are against Christ will indeed do all kinds of things and say all kinds of things against us to doubt that we are harmless to worldly rulers.

Again, Jesus' words cannot be interpreted to make for an allowance for using physical violence for self defense against general attackers in John 18:36. Our Lord's statement is clear to Pilate that his servants would not fight because His kingdom is not of this world. Jesus and His followers taught Non-Resistance and there was never a time where He made an exception to the rule on this. We cannot go above God's Word and do our own thing.

Yes, yes. Who were fighting? Jerusalem was destroyed because of the Jewish revolt against Rome. They fought for the earthly kingdom to be established again that God promised them. Not only a mass revolt in 70 Ad, but later as well in the bar kochba revolt. We in Christ know it is a kingdom God himself brings about. We are merely making citizens of it now in their hearts and minds.
We are not seen as a threat to anyone as Christians, when we merely defend ourselves, our families, neighbours from Criminals as individuals.

You can defend your family, and neighbors against bad guys without the use of physical violence. There are other ways. But I say this not out of my own thinking but I say this based upon God's Word. Back in 1992, after I accepted Christ when I was a teenager, I dreamed of building an Iron Man suit to defend people against bad guys. But as I matured in life and I studied God's Word over the years, this simply is not necessary. I don't need to shoot a lethal level repulsor ray at somebody to stop them. Even Iron man had the capability to stop somebody with his repulsor ray without lethal force (like with knocking Falcon back) vs. shooting through concrete or a person. We don't need to blast holes in people with guns and kill them. We do not need to use fists of fury or sharks with laser on their foreheads to destroy our enemies. Jesus said to pray, do good, and to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44). The apostle Paul says, “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”

So the choice is yours.
Either believe God's Word or just run off and do your own thing.
I choose to side with God's Word instead.

 

[ralliann]

But Lot's situation took place in the Old Covenant. We cannot build a theology on the Old if the New Covenant teachings appear to contradict the Old way of doing things. Christ's death began the New Covenant and with it the New commands and teachings that come with that. [/see my other post concerning this. I just want to focus here on our ideas of old and new. Abraham was never under the Sinai covenant.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Hebrews 7:12 says that Law has changed.

Why is it changed? Because the priesthood was changed?
How is the priesthood changed?
Because it was without an oath.
An oath settles it for sureity that is why the oath for Abraham to be the father of Kings, and Sarai to be the mother of Kings (Moses gave no kings for them but did allow for it). The royal covenant made with Abraham is signified and sealed in the blood of circumcision. It cannot change because God swore an oath in Genesis 22.

We can see many of these changes taking place even before Christ's death with His teachings on the Sermon on the Mount (See: Matthew 5-7).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

[QUOTE="ralliann, post: 76053126, member: 193777". I don't think the Gospel focuses on this issue, it does not because it is about a heavenly kingdom which we war for it's advancement. Jesus and the Apostles were not a threat to the earthly rulers, because that wasn't what it was about IMO. I think Abraham rescuing Lot is a good example of violence being used for rescue, not to set up the kingdom God promised him. He would take none of the booty from the slaughter. He was looking for God to enrich him, and bring about his kingdom.[/QUOTE]

The earthly rulers did see the Apostles and the Christians of the early Church as a threat. It's why the
persecuted them.

The Apostles, like Jesus knew that overthrowing the Roman Empire through force would never have
worked anyway. So, like Gandhi did in India, they used non-violence in their way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hebrews 7:12 says that Law has changed.

Why is it changed? Because the priesthood was changed?
How is the priesthood changed?
Because it was without an oath.
An oath settles it for sureity that is why the oath for Abraham to be the father of Kings, and Sarai to be the mother of Kings (Moses gave no kings for them but did allow for it). The royal covenant made with Abraham is signified and sealed in the blood of circumcision. It cannot change because God swore an oath in Genesis 22.

How does this relate to your defense that we can use violence against general physical attackers?

 

[ralliann]

The earthly rulers did see the Apostles and the Christians of the early Church as a threat. It's why the
persecuted them.
They were deemed by the rulers of the Jew's to be an illegal religion not merely a sect of Judaism. Plus everything was blamed on them after that. The blood of his saints showed it was not. Eventually winning out.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I just want to focus here on our ideas of old and new. Abraham was never under the Sinai covenant.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Nowhere did I ever say that Abraham was under the Mosaic Law or Covenant. Only a novice reader who never read or studied the Bible would make that assumption. My point is that the Old Testament Law of Moses (the 613 laws of Moses) has changed. Even Abraham had his instructions that were different than Moses and different for us. Noah had his instructions that were different, too. He was told to build an Ark among others things.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

...

 

[ralliann]

How does this relate to your defense that we can use violence against general physical attackers?

I don't even know what to say to this? Abraham was a great man of faith, yet killed kings to rescue his nephew lot. Abraham kept the law of faith. He walked as a stranger and sojourner on this earth, waiting for the kingdom we are all waiting for.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

[ralliann]

Nowhere did I ever say that Abraham was under the Mosaic Law or Covenant. Only a novice reader who never read or studied the Bible would make that assumption. My point is that the Old Testament Law of Moses (the 613 laws of Moses) has changed. Even Abraham had his instructions that were different than Moses and different for us. Noah had his instructions that were different, too. He was told to build an Ark among others things.

It explains the change. Lacking an oath God can indeed repent. Unilateral vs bilateral covenants.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't even know what to say to this? Abraham was a great man of faith, yet killed kings to rescue his nephew lot. Abraham kept the law of faith. He walked as a stranger and sojourner on this earth, waiting for the kingdom we are all waiting for.
Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Paul's point in Romans 3 and Romans 4 was about being justified by God's grace through faith in Christ without the deeds of the Law (Which is the first aspect of salvation). We are first saved by God's grace and mercy by Jesus. This does not mean we have the same instructions as a part of the faith as Abraham after being saved by God's grace. Abraham was required to be circumcised, but circumcision is not are a requirement under the New Covenant.