Justifyable War?

[Giver]

Just to dip my toe in the water . . .

Giver



However, this argument doesn't address articfox's argument (good job, by the way, to fox). The scripture which follows the verses you just quoted, Romans 13, clearly states that the government exists to administer authority. Jesus or the apostles also never rebuke people for being involved in government, either in the military or otherwise. The New Testament included members of the church who were soldiers and government officials. I, also, don't think that, right after he starts talking about vengeance, Paul names an institute ordained by him to exact vengeance is a coincidence. I think anyone who makes the no Christians in government, no Christians in war, case has a hard exegesis ahead of them in regards to Romans 13.

An interesting question is, if you assume a country can wage war and Christians can be involved in government, under what circumstances is war okay, and is assassination an allowable tactic?

As Christians we are to obey our government, unless the government tells us to do something that goes against the Word of God. When the governing authorities told Peter and the rest of the apostles not to preach in Jesus name, what did Peter tell them? (Acts 4:19-20) “You must judge whether in God’s eyes it is right to listen to you and not to God. We cannot promise to stop proclaiming what we have seen and heard.”

Do you think the German soldiers who put all those Jewish people to death were justified? They were obeying their government .

 

[Silenus]

giver said . . .

Do you think the German soldiers who put all those Jewish people to death were justified? They were obeying their government .

This creates no problem for artic's argument. No one is arguing that, if the government asks you to do something contrary to the word of god or the ethics of Christianity, that you have to obey. However, it is obvious that Paul had no problem with the government defending itself with the sword. he grants this as something granted by God. He also seems to have no problem with Christians participating in government, as long as they do it in Godliness. So, a Christian would not follow the order and would boldly take the punishment. Your objection simply raises the question of how would a Christian leader go to war. What are righteous circumstances? That was my second question. If you want an example of a Godly man in the seat of power in a sinful Babylon, lets look at Daniel.

 

[Giver]

giver said . . .



This creates no problem for artic's argument. No one is arguing that, if the government asks you to do something contrary to the word of god or the ethics of Christianity, that you have to obey. However, it is obvious that Paul had no problem with the government defending itself with the sword. he grants this as something granted by God. He also seems to have no problem with Christians participating in government, as long as they do it in Godliness. So, a Christian would not follow the order and would boldly take the punishment. Your objection simply raises the question of how would a Christian leader go to war. What are righteous circumstances? That was my second question. If you want an example of a Godly man in the seat of power in a sinful Babylon, lets look at Daniel.

I don’t have a lot of time right now, have to leave for work, but I believe your question has been answered before on the thread. I will say again the world needs to use force. A Christian isn’t part of the world.

Again! The world needs an army, police force, and laws, but Christian are not part of the world, and do not need to be part of these things.

(John 17:14-18) “I passed your word on to them, and the world hated them, because they belong to the world no more than I belong to the world. I am not asking you to remove them from the world, but to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.”

(1 Timothy 1:8-11) “We know, of course, that the Law is good, but only provided it is treated like any law, in the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are good. On the contrary, they are for criminals and revolutionaries, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the irreverent; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men, for liars and for perjurers and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching that goes with the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, the gospel that was entrusted to me.”

 

[razzelflabben]

Who is "WE"? We Christians or We citizens of a country in the world?

If you meant "WE citizens," you go ahead and do that. We Christians do not get involved in such things.



Kill them before they kill you. Do not love your enemies but kill.



Well you might want to convince Americans they should kill before they are killed. But it won't convince true disciples of Christ. America is one thing; the church is another. This nation of God, the church, does not wage war and kill. It does not take up arms but does as our Lord did, be crucified for the love of others. He did not take up arms and kill.



America is not Israel of the Old Testament.

If you are so concerned about your guarding your worldly comforts even to the point of killing other human beings, perhaps Christianity is not for you.

A couple of questions for you, they may seem silly but we don't know what you believe so I think it best to qualify a couple of things.

1. Is the God of the NT the same God as of the OT?
2. Why did God command the children of Isreal to kill women and children?

 

[razzelflabben]

You know it is easy to say you love Jesus and believe he is God, but hearing his Word and living it is what proves that we love Jesus. (Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

Jesus told us: (Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is Mine I will pay them back, the Lord promises,’ but there is more: if your enemy is hungry, you should give him food, and if he is thirsty, let him drink. Thus you heap red-hot coals on his head. Resist evil and conquer it with good.”

Now you can try to worm your way around these Words all you want, but these are the Words of God and he is our boss. Some day you will need to face him and then see if he will accept your watered down version of his Word.

This "dueling scriptures" reminds me of the temptations of Christ, where satan offered scriptures to Jesus as justification. Jesus reply was also in scriptures. The bottom line seems to be that we need to look deeper at the scriptures and less at our own ideas and interpretations of those scriptures. The truth lies somewhere in the word, but if we never take the time to find out what God's intent was, we will never know the truth, only go round and round and round playing dueling scriptures. How does that glorify God?

 

[razzelflabben]

Just to dip my toe in the water . . .

Giver



However, this argument doesn't address articfox's argument (good job, by the way, to fox). The scripture which follows the verses you just quoted, Romans 13, clearly states that the government exists to administer authority. Jesus or the apostles also never rebuke people for being involved in government, either in the military or otherwise. The New Testament included members of the church who were soldiers and government officials. I, also, don't think that, right after he starts talking about vengeance, Paul names an institute ordained by him to exact vengeance is a coincidence. I think anyone who makes the no Christians in government, no Christians in war, case has a hard exegesis ahead of them in regards to Romans 13.

An interesting question is, if you assume a country can wage war and Christians can be involved in government, under what circumstances is war okay, and is assassination an allowable tactic?

We also forget that the Centurian (soldier) was said by Jesus Himself to have the greatest faith He had ever seen. Interesting that Jesus didn't tell him to leave the military isn't it.

Thanks, nice post

 

[razzelflabben]

i see, so you are a follower of Moses and his teachings. As to your question am i one who thinks that the old testement is not valid anymore? Answer Yes and No, Yes it is valid for testimony, History, and Truth, But NO, to that we have to obey any part of it, unless you are a Jew, who still lives and believes the OT. Jesus Christ gave us a New Covenant, The New Testiment. The NT even teaches us that the Old is old, and that the New is better. It also teaches us, that if the Old did not have flaws, there would be no need for the New, but because there is a New, Better covenant under Christ, the Old is done away with, that we should not longer obey the old, but be subject to the teachings of our Master Jesus Christ.
The Disciples of Jesus Christ had to correct many people in those days, because they accepted Christ yet tried to continue to live in the laws of Moses ( ie by being circumcised ) The Disciples said this was not so.
Are you then a follower of Christ and His teachings or a follower of Moses and his???

Should we obey the OLD TESTIMENT????
Find out here >
http://members.aol.com/discipledave/book/ObeyOld.html

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

Romans 8:4

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=34 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=24 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=2


4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Galatians 5:14

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=34 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=24 http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgclick.php?what=2


14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

According to the bible, the OT law was all about love, the same as the NT law. So why then do you think the law has changed?

 

[ScottBot]

When Peter drew his sword in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told him to put his sword back in its sheath.... If he really intended complete and total pacifism, He would have told Peter to throw his sword away. But no, He told Peter keep his sword, but put it away. This indicates that Christ recognizes that self-defense, has its proper place.

[bible]john 18:11[/bible]

Jesus doesn't admonish Peter for defend Christ from tyrannical action, but rather because Peter was standing in the way of Christ's mission.

Additionally, Christ never commands the Centurion to leave the army. Rather, He tells the centurion how great his faith is.

[bible]matthew 8:10[/bible]


John the Baptist encounters a soldiers in his ministry who ask John what they should do. Did John command them to get out of the military? No.

Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

Even Jesus talks about the wisdom of a king who plans for battle. If Jesus condone total and utter pacificism, would He not rale against any and all warfare? No, He says:

[bible]luke 14:31[/bible]

 

[razzelflabben]

(1 Timothy 1:8-11) “We know, of course, that the Law is good, but only provided it is treated like any law, in the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are good. On the contrary, they are for criminals and revolutionaries, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the irreverent; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men, for liars and for perjurers and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching that goes with the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, the gospel that was entrusted to me.”

So smokers are criminals? revoltionaries? irriligious? wicked? sacrilegious? irreverent? Kill their fathers and mothers? murderers? immoral with women or boys or men? Liars? perjurers? or otherwise contrary to the teachings of God?
We have a no smoking law you know

In our town, there is now a big deal being made about the law that states that all trash much be in can of specific size and weight, those who do not comply, which of the above are they? Why can't they simply be poor, you know the poor at the center of God's heart.

There are laws about watering your horse in public fountains, which of these evils fit those who might water their horse?

I won't go on, there are simply way to many nonsense laws to make this apply to our present legal system as you are applying it.

 

[ScottBot]

Apparently, if you follow what you believe to be Christ's teaching about total and utter pacifism, you are an advocate of classical anarchism. Civil authority is derived inherently from our intrinsic right to defend ourselves. God ordains all authority, and authority is properly used to provide for the common good, part of which is to maintain civil order. Part of maintaining civil order is to capture and punish those who break the law.

Here is the definition of classical anarchism: The belief that all existing governmental authority should be abolished and replaced by free cooperation among individuals.

While I agree that is the ultimate goal, you would be a fool to think it will happen in our lifetime. It will happen when Christ returns to place the world under the final judgement.....now, that could happen in 5 minutes, or 5,000 years. Noone but the Father knows. Until then, God gave us the capacity to form governments to provide for the law and order that will come voluntarily when all that is left in the world are those who follow Christ.

 

[razzelflabben]

Apparently, if you follow what you believe to be Christ's teaching about total and utter pacifism, you are an advocate of classical anarchism.

My bad, I thought we were talking about what the bible says, not about what any individual believes apart from the word of God. Sorry.

Civil authority is derived inherently from our intrinsic right to defend ourselves. God ordains all authority, and authority is properly used to provide for the common good, part of which is to maintain civil order. Part of maintaining civil order is to capture and punish those who break the law.

God does not ordain all authority, as such anyway. Here's what I mean, God's authority is above all other. Therefor the only ordained authority is His. God does on the other hand place those in authority He wills. And yes, as hard as that is to accept, that would even include Hitler, and all the other leaders we consider evil.

 

[Smileyill]

Let me answer, if it is ok.

First of all, we have two different views in Luke and Matthew. In the Garden of Gethsemene.
Matthew says that Christ tells Peter to put down the sword, for those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.

Then in Luke, Christ says...'Go out and sell your cloak and buy a sword.'

So do the Apostles tell opposing stories, although Luke finishes it as Matthew does...?

No...
Basically the message is; live peaceful lives. Do not be seeking out death and destruction of others.

Do not carry a weapon to force yourselves on others.
Do not act in violence to convert others.

It will only be proof to rebuff others, and they will never convert with a sincere heart, and all you will attract are war mongers...not peaceful and loving people.

Ok, so why does Christ tell us to sell our cloak to buy a sword?

MY opinion is Christ knew at future times, those who oppose Christ and His people would come in and annihilate them IF they did not defend themselves.

If Christ's ppl were to be eradicated...who would carry on truth for all nations and all generations?

So, although we are to die for Christ...martyred for the sake of faith... does not mean on a global scale we should stand still and let our children be slaughtered. [the future]

Those who use the sword shall die by the sword can be two fold.
If we use force, we are teaching others that force is good...hence we have generations of blood hungry men out for blood. Therefore, the soul who taught this shall perish. It is not the message to convert genuine loving souls to Jesus.

Also, chances are good if we are weilding a sword, we are in combat and shall die a physical death by the sword.

Think large and small.

On the large scale, we are to defend life... even if protecting them by killing the one trying to murder.
On a small scale, for Christ we should let our enemies kill us 'for the sake of Christ'.

NOT always are there wars over faith in Christ. Sometimes a blood hungry dictator will ensue unnecessary death to millions...and we need to defend them.

Examples; Hitler, Stalin, Moa Sae Tung. [sp]

Does this make any sense?

I think you confuse owning weapons with murdering. Weapons often deter violence.

DiscipleDave only argues against killing by Christians. I see only 2 flaws in his reasoning, Christians government officials do exist and they don't have the sword for nothing. Further, if God decides it's time for a murder to die, then God may let them get caught in the act of murder or cause the authorities to catch them.

 

[mooduck1]

I suppose you found that story in the Word of God?

No, but the concept is all over the place. I find it tiresome to go through this 'I can look up Bible quotes better than you!' excersize. I usually comment with the assumption that we all know mour bibles and can understand and agree on some simplke concepts. I'm reluctant even now, but I'll give you one example if it will help pove my point.

David,
Here was a boy who heard the battle call of Goliath. David was a faithful boy. If the 'sit around and pray, while action is required' camp is correct then David had little faith because he did the following after hearing the taunt from the very large reprensentative of the people who wanted to destry his country - He got off his butt, urged the authorities to let him fight the Giant. THEN, he moved again, went to a river and picked up a few stones (goliath had brothers), went out to the field of battle and smote Goliath with a single stone, then cut his head off. David had faith but he did not wait around for God to slay the Philestine for him. He did not say 'but lord, your word says 'thy shall not kill!' He had faith that urged him to act on behalf of his God and his country, and he took that action. I do hope that you are not one who believes that the OT doesn't apply, otherwise, you won't accept this example either. I'm realising more and more with this string that the pacifists in large part, do not accept ALL of scripture as being valuable today. If that is the case with you (and I hope it is not) then we probably don't have much we'd agree on anyway since our sources are different.

 

[ScottBot]

My bad, I thought we were talking about what the bible says, not about what any individual believes apart from the word of God. Sorry. God does not ordain all authority, as such anyway. Here's what I mean, God's authority is above all other. Therefor the only ordained authority is His. God does on the other hand place those in authority He wills. And yes, as hard as that is to accept, that would even include Hitler, and all the other leaders we consider evil.

[bible]matthew 28:18[/bible]
[bible]romans 13:1-3[/bible]
[bible]1 corinthians 15:24[/bible]
1. All authority is delegated from Christ
2. As such, we are to submit to civil authority.
3. God will eventual put an end to civil authority, because He will be ruling in person.

 

[Smileyill]

Doesn't anyone remember that story about the family who died sitting on their roof waiting for God to save them while rejecting human help in vaious forms, then they go to heaven and say 'God, why didn't you save us?' And God says, "I sent you guy ina boat, a rescue dog, and a helicoptor!" This is the fallacy of simply waiting around for a sterotypical supernatural solution to our problems. I bring this up because only a direct act of God would save us if we did not actively defend ourselves from Miltant Islamists and every other group that has NO issue with killing to take thier share of the American Pie. personally, I intend to use the tools God has already given me if Predators show up on my doorstep (right after a very short prayer for God to make my aim swift and accurate!).

Yes but once you go down that road you allow non-Christians to go too far. ~16k civilians died in Iraq, 5x what we lost!!! Some estimates hit 100k, but a min of 16k. An unjustified war for sure.

washington post

 

[razzelflabben]

[bible]matthew 28:18[/bible]
[bible]romans 13:1-3[/bible]
[bible]1 corinthians 15:24[/bible]
1. All authority is delegated from Christ
2. As such, we are to submit to civil authority.
3. God will eventual put an end to civil authority, because He will be ruling in person.

Sounds exactly like what I said, so you are saying what exactly?

 

[ScottBot]

Sounds exactly like what I said, so you are saying what exactly?

That self-defense is a perfectly acceptable Christian act.

 

[ScottBot]

Yes but once you go down that road you allow non-Christians to go too far. ~16k civilians died in Iraq, 5x what we lost!!! Some extimates hit 100k, but a min of 16k. An unjustified war for sure.

washington post

Non sequitor. You should at least TRY to make your premises arrive at a logical conclussion.

 

[Smileyill]

Non sequitor. You should at least TRY to make your premises arrive at a logical conclussion.

Premise: Justified wars produce more benefits than suffering.

The Iraqi war caused more suffering than benefits.

Conclusion: The Iraqi is not just.

Evidence: civilian deaths, and nearly a trillion dollars spent. (Think about it, we could feed all Africa for years with that amount)

It's really not possible for Christians to conduct a war alone. Although God does control all.

 

[mooduck1]

Yes but once you go down that road you allow non-Christians to go too far. ~16k civilians died in Iraq, 5x what we lost!!! Some estimates hit 100k, but a min of 16k. An unjustified war for sure.

washington post

No serious Christian believes that GWB followed the classic model of a 'just war', and nowhere in my thesis have I given any indication that agree with anything going on in Iraq. Clearly, we've learned at great cost on both sides that you can force 'freedom' or 'democracy' on anyone, and we see now, why 'preemptive strikes' are down right criminal on every level.