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

dqhall · Apr 12, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Pacifism as Taught in the New Testament is Moral and Good:

Christians are to walk by faith and not by sight. For without faith, it is impossible to please God. Trusting in the verses or passages in the Bible on pacifism takes faith. You have to first believe these words in the Bible and you have to take it by faith that God has an ultimate good plan that we cannot always see (No matter what happens to us). The life story of Joseph is a good example of this. What Joseph's brothers intended for evil against Joseph, God intended to use their evil for the purpose of good. It is the same with Jesus. What appeared to be the death of the disciple's master (which really had upset Peter at first), was the ultimate plan of redemption for all mankind. Something that appeared to be horrible (The death of Jesus), was just the start of something amazing and good. So we cannot always see what God's plan is even when we are to walk in the valley of the shadow of death. For when Job had lost his sons, certain possessions, and his health, he could have denied God and turn away from Him. But Job did not do that. He still continued to believe in the Lord and worship Him (even if he did briefly get angry at God). The idea of pacifism is hard for many of us. Some of you may have been to war. Some of you may be a police officer and you rely on your gun. Some of you may have even saved lives countless times over with the use of violent force. But God's ways are higher than our ways. He calls us to do things by faith that does not always make sense to us. For there are cases where Christians who follow the New Testament's teaching on pacifism who have prayed and or praised God in a potentially violent situation and they were not harmed. Granted, this is not always the case. Christians are also called to be persecuted or to suffer as Christ had suffered. How can one truly do this if they are on the offensive and or attacking others? We are told to follow the life of Jesus. Yet, nowhere do we see Jesus ever fighting back. Jesus says take up your cross and come follow me. Jesus died on the cross. What would have seemed like the end, was actually something far more. When believers die or suffer for the cause of Christ and it leads to just one soul to the LORD because they see the love, peace, and dedication they have for God (who lives in them), then it is all worth it according to God's ultimate plan for good (Which is to lead as many men as possible to Him). But what about justice in a given situation? Should we stand by as we watch our family or friends or others get hurt? No. We can trust in God and pray to Him and act in a non-violent way so as to protect them. But wouldn't it seem simpler to just end evil men by shooting them? Then how can you witness Christ or the gospel to them if they are dead? Also, is not God in control of all things? Can anything truly bad happen to you without God's say so? But again, you might ask: What about justice in a given situation? If God told you to trust in Him and His plan of not acting violent, and something bad happens, do you think that evil or evil men will not be judged in the end? Can you also see God's entire good plan working in your life in trusting Him like with the story of Joseph and his brothers? Are you God to be able to see His greater plan for good?

New Testament Scripture That Supports Pacifism:

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.

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).

...

Thanks for your study of this topic.

I remember my mother used to tell me two wrongs do not make a right. Later I realized that revenge and retaliation prolonged conflicts.

I remember it was written in the law something like, "If a man knocks out the tooth of another, his tooth should be knocked out." It is summarized, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." This legal principle is known as Lex Talionis and dates back to the reign of Hammurubi almost 1800 BC; according to clay cuneiform tablets found from his administration. Gandhi said, "If an eye is taken for an eye, the whole world will be blind."

Jesus taught his disciples to be as harmless as a dove. The dove ate a mainly vegetarian diet. Sometimes it is better to forgive a slap on the cheek.

noam burde · Apr 12, 2017

dogs4thewin said:
I have no problem with people Christian or otherwise for that matter choosing not to defend themselves ( particularly if doing so would involve violence) I do have an issue with people who refuse to defend OTHER people and/or tell people that it is wrong to use their legal right to self defense.

among other things. Christians are confused because their bible say's "do not kill". as one of the ten commandments. but it was actually written "לֹא תִרְצָח". which means "do not murder". the word for kill is "להרוג". a totally different word. so god is saying do not unlawfully kill.
so.. pacifism is wrong.

yeshuaslavejeff · Apr 12, 2017

Not necessarily - but since so much is wrong over and above that it really doesn't matter for over 90% of the world - except people are hurt, violently , every day, often in the name of God or religion (which is wrong).

i.e. If someone is guilty of idolatry, greed, or adultery (much much more common than pacifism), and not repenting, ... then
if they are pacifist also, won't matter at all on judgment day.

There's a lot of cleaning up steps to do before even wondering about something so usually harmless as pacifism.

Bible Highlighter · Apr 12, 2017

noam burde said:
among other things. Christians are confused because their bible say's "do not kill". as one of the ten commandments. but it was actually written "לֹא תִרְצָח". which means "do not murder". the word for kill is "להרוג". a totally different word. so god is saying do not unlawfully kill.
so.. pacifism is wrong.

We are told to imitate Jesus Christ in Scripture. If you do that for real, you will automatically be an Agent of Non-Violence. The Old Testament allowed for God's people to use violence to stop God's enemies and to show that God is a punisher to those who do evil (And a rewarder to those who seek Him). But we are not under the Old Covenant and it's laws (as a whole) anymore. We still follow the moral law,... yes, but we do not sacrifice animals anymore, and we are not forbidden to eat unclean meat, or to keep the Saturday Sabbath, and there is no death penalty in breaking God's laws anymore. The 613 Laws within the Law of Moses was for Israel and not the church. Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. When Jesus was sacrificed upon the cross, the temple veil was torn from top to bottom. This means the animal sacrifices that was a part of the Old Law was no longer binding or acceptable anymore. Jesus is now our sacrifice. It is why Paul says we are not under the Law. He was referring to Old Testament Law and not all law. Christians are not immoral. They are good and they obey God's Word (with the commands that come from the New Testament); And you would be hard pressed to find a command in the New Testament that says that Christians are to use violent force so as to resolve matters.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 26, 2018

SteveIndy said:
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.

You are preaching to the choir. I am an agent of Non-Violence. The only difference between us is that you think this applies to governments, or nations (Who do not follow Jesus) whereas I do not think this applies. I believe there are no nations today who are following Christ. They are unbelievers. However, Romans 13 makes it clear that they are God's ministers of justice. Would I go out of my way to support them in their just war? No. But neither will I seek to stop them, either. We are to submit to government authorities unless they are telling us to violate God's laws. I am a Non-Resistant because of Jesus's commands. If they ordered me to take life, I could not do it because the Lord's commands supersede their commands. They play a different role or position than me. Now, if everyone accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior on the planet, then everyone would be an agent of Non-Violence and there would be no more wars, violence, etc. generally speaking. But seeing God knows that this will not happen, then God is more than capable of using unbelieving government authorities for His greater plan for good.

SteveIndy · Dec 26, 2018

Jason0047 said:
You are preaching to the choir. I am a Non-Resistant or a Pacifist. The only difference between us is that you think this applies to governments, or nations (Who do not follow Jesus) whereas I do not think this applies. I believe there are no nations today who are following Christ. They are unbelievers. However, Romans 13 makes it clear that they are God's ministers of justice. Would I go out of my way to support them in their just war? No. But neither will I seek to stop them, either. We are to submit to government authorities unless they are telling us to violate God's laws. I am a Non-Resistant or Pacifist because of Jesus's commands. If they ordered me to take life, I could not do it because the Lord's commands supersede their commands. They play a different role or position than me. Now, if everyone accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior on the planet, then everyone would be a Non-Resistant and there would be no more wars, violence, etc. generally speaking. But seeing God knows that this will not happen, then God is more than capable of using unbelieving government authorities for His greater plan for good.

No, I do not think non-resistance applies to governments or unbelievers, how could it, they have no foundation for such an idea apart from the Kingdom of God. Christians have no obligation to support government, in the government's role as agents of God to inflict judgment on the unrighteous. Governments are unrighteous organizations of which Christians are to obey as much as possible. Christians who pledge their allegiance to a flag or a government of man are, according to Scripture, not really Christians at all because "you cannot serve two masters." This is not written in words hard to understand, it is very plain and simple and was understood perfectly by the primitive Church.

I am glad to know that I am not preaching to the choir. Christians are citizens of another Kingdom and there is no such thing as dual citizenship; a choice has to be made.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 26, 2018

SteveIndy said:
No, I do not think non-resistance applies to governments or unbelievers, how could it, they have no foundation for such an idea apart from the Kingdom of God. Christians have no obligation to support government, in the government's role as agents of God to inflict judgment on the unrighteous. Governments are unrighteous organizations of which Christians are to obey as much as possible. Christians who pledge their allegiance to a flag or a government of man are, according to Scripture, not really Christians at all because "you cannot serve two masters." This is not written in words hard to understand, it is very plain and simple and was understood perfectly by the primitive Church.

I am glad to know that I am not preaching to the choir. Christians are citizens of another Kingdom and there is no such thing as dual citizenship; a choice has to be made.

If you were not born here, and you decided to become a citizen of the United States, you would have to declare an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounce your previous allegiance to your previous country.

If what you say is true, then you would need to renounce your citizenship. By birth you are naturally a citizen and in allegiance to the US. If not, then you strive to no longer be a citizen legally of the US. But by remaining a citizen you are under the allegiance to the United States and you are subject to it's laws and not the laws of another country. We are to obey governing authorities (As long as they do not violate God's laws). Paul did not renounce his citizenship of Rome and claimed he only recognized the citizenship in God's kingdom. While our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus and His Word, I do not believe it is at conflict with being a citizen of a country unless that country is desiring you to do satanic things. Being a citizen to the US, means you are in allegiance to the welfare of the US and you are not seeking allegiance to another country. Some take their allegiance to the US too far and they get involved in it's affairs like trying to vote (which is voluntary), or trying to be a politician, or trying to support the change of different laws, or in trying to join the military to use violence to defend the country, etc. Jesus says render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's.

SteveIndy · Dec 26, 2018

Jason0047 said:
If you were not born here, and you decided to become a citizen of the United States, you would have to declare an oath of allegiance to the United States and renounce your previous allegiance to your previous country.

If what you say is true, then you would need to renounce your citizenship. By birth you are naturally a citizen and in allegiance to the US. If not, then you strive to no longer be a citizen legally of the US. But by remaining a citizen you are under the allegiance to the United States and you are subject to it's laws and not the laws of another country. We are to obey governing authorities (As long as they do not violate God's laws). Paul did not renounce his citizenship of Rome and claimed he only recognized the citizenship in God's kingdom. While our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus and His Word, I do not believe it is at conflict with being a citizen of a country unless that country is desiring you to do satanic things. Being a citizen to the US, means you are in allegiance to the welfare of the US and you are not seeking allegiance to another country. Some take their allegiance to the US too far and they get involved in it's affairs like trying to vote (which is voluntary), or trying to be a politician, or trying to support the change of different laws, or in trying to join the military to use violence to defend the country, etc. Jesus says render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's.

If I was not born here then I would have to make application for alternative service, which is being done and has been done by others who objected to military service or swearing an oath. The U.S. does allow for this if your request is valid and can be justified by your lifestyle and past experience. Each case is handled individually and on its own merits. I personally have taken an oath when I voluntarily joined the Army in 1967 and served two full years in Vietnam, that experience has taught me a lot.

There is no need to renounce a citizenship that a person receives by birth, your statement is not true. A child does not "naturally" pledge its allegiance by an act of birth, that is silly. And, even if a person did at some point put their hand on their heart and say some pledge that doesn't mean that it cannot be rescinded at a later time by becoming a Christian and a conscientious objector. Did Paul rescind his Roman citizenship? No! And, he even used it at one point to secure an audience with the Emperor, although he never used it to procure any special favors other than advancing the Gospel.

You are very correct on one point and that is that I am subject to the laws of the land as long as those laws do not interfere with my allegiance to my King, and Lord of the Kingdom of Heaven of which I am a citizen first and foremost. I am subject to the laws of the country of which I am a citizen and the Ruler of that Country has declared that I should keep myself free of any allegiances that would compromise my duty to my home country. I will obey the laws because I have been told to by my Lord and I will remain "subject unto the HIGHER powers" when a question of authority arises, even if it requires my life or the life of my family and all of my possessions. I am not subject to any laws of man, although I do obey them.

I will say it again, I do not and I will not swear my allegiance to any man or country, but I will work to advance the goodwill of its land and people.

Just as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not bow to a national image I will not stand and place my hand on my heart and pledge allegiance to an image of a flag. I do not vote and I do not get involved in the politics of this world. In my estimations, there are no Christian politicians. A politician has chosen who he will serve and it is not the God of Heaven; you cannot serve two masters. Likewise, those who play politics with their bumper-stickers and loud voices have made a choice that is not the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you care to explore my reasoning a little further then I have many articles at www.IndyWatchman.com that express my sentiments. Blessings, Steve

Bible Highlighter · Dec 30, 2018

Daniel Martinovich said:
Exactly the way Gods people that Jesus sent out and his followers for the next 14 or so centuries were to not attempt to use the sword to win their freedoms. In the age before that they were to make copious use of it becasue the law was so weak in converting he lost. So here we have two different ages were Gods saints found themselves in completely different circumstances that called for completely different outward actions. The Bible already prophesied that Gods people would be completely subjugated during the age of the four gentile empires. It affirmed this in Revelation when it said he that takes up the sword will perish with the sword. This is the faith patience of the saints. Meaning. They were to suffer under the Roman Empire and it would be futile to take the sword against it.

But the age of the four gentile nations is over and the circumstances we find ourselves in are completely different. Prophecy does not teach us non violence or non resistance unless that is all that can be done at the time. It teaches us to overcome the wicked and that certainly involves some use of the sword.

Isaiah 42:1Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. 4He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.

Psalm 72:2He shall judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with judgment. 3The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness. 4He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.

I have recently come to believe in Cessationism (the ceasing of apostolistic or miraculous gifts) based on several good verses that implies this. We also do not see believers operating by miracles like in the early church, either. But the verses you present for the ending of Christ’s teaching on Non-Violence based on the verses you presented are vague in relation to your point (at best).

Anyways, please do not take offense.
I am just calling it like I see it, unless you have better verses than the ones you shown me.

SPF · Jan 3, 2019

Jason0047 said:
I have recently come to believe in Cessationism (the ceasing of apostlistic or miraculous gifts) based on several good verses that implies this

In my experience, the only cessationists I know are actually fellow Americans, or other people that live in the middle to upper class status in other first world countries, and they haven't done any missionary work overseas.

Satan's tactics are varied, and he'll do anything to lead people astray. He doesn't care if someone is led astray by being an atheist, or if someone is led astray by becoming extremely religious, just so long as they don't acknowledge Christ in their religiousness.

In America in particular, I think Satan's primary tactic is to simply convince people that religion is a thing of the past. God is nothing more than a "God of the gaps" where the more we fill in the gaps with knowledge, the less room there is for God. I think Satan works hard to make Christians (in America) think there are no such things as miracles anymore.

But that tactic doesn't work everywhere, though it is very effective here in America. However, I've seen miracles, I've experienced the healing of a multi-fractured foot through prayer.

For cessastionism to be true, it would necessarily mean the the healing of my broken foot 1 week before I was to leave on a mission trip was Satanic in nature. I personally can't think of why Satan would want my foot healed, but if so, I'm thankful he did because God was able to use me to reach many lost people.

As far as pacifism. That idea is clearly at odds with what God teaches.

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

Pacifism is harmful
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.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

Albion · Jan 3, 2019

After all the ins and outs of analysis are done, the reason that cessationists are cessationists is because the gifts ceased.

It is not a theory, not based upon teasing some interpretation out of a Bible passage, not conjecture about the Holy Spirit. None of that. It is because they did cease.

As for pacifism, I agree that it is not the teaching of scripture. Not genuine pacifism. It is true that the early Christians would not serve in the military but that was because there was only one (Rome's)...and it was actively oppressing the Christians. When the church later was tolerated and legalized, the Christian population changed its mind.

SPF · Jan 3, 2019

Albion said:
It is not a theory, not based upon teasing some interpretation out of a Bible passage, not conjecture about the Holy Spirit. None of that. It is because they did cease.

The problem I have with this is that I have personally experienced a miracle of healing.

I was barefoot, and had my right foot quite literally crushed and fractured in multiple places all along the right side of it when someone with metal spiked soccer cleats came down on it. The x-rays revealed multiple fractures. My foot was put in a soft cast for the rest of the day/night and was going to be put in a hard cast the following day when hopefully the swelling had gone down.

I was told I would not be able to travel the following week on my mission trip. The trip was to a remote part of Brazil and would involve a large amount of walking.

That night my Pastor and team prayed for healing. My foot was healed right there in front of everyone.

So here's the problem. If cessationism is true, then how do we account for the healing? It was real, it happened. As far as I know, the only available explanation if cessationism is true is that it was demonic in nature. I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that Satan was there in the midst of us Believers while we worshiped and prayed and watched a healing.

That concerns me on a number of levels. First, the fact that nobody there had any warning in their spirits is alarming. Second, why would Satan do that in the first place? The result of the healing was strengthening of faith for all of us there. The result was that I was able to go to Brazil and preach and see many lost people saved.

The other really important part of this story is that I'm not charismatic. I'm not Pentecostal. The church I was attending at the time was a fairly standard non-denominational church. Nobody spoke in tongues there, I hadn't seen any other healings take place there. This was very much, I believe, unexpected, at least for me it was.

I've yet to hear a cessastionist give me a reasonable response to my experience.

Albion · Jan 3, 2019

SPF said:
The problem I have with this is that I have personally experienced a miracle of healing.

All right, but let's be clear about what is meant by cessation. We all believe that God can do whatever he chooses and that he does create miracles. However, in the early church (again as we all know) the gifts of the Holy Spirit were much in evidence; they were a staple of the church's life; they made possible the conversion of many non-believers. They were given to the church in order to accomplish something that part of God's plan. What happened on Pentecost is a perfect example of that.

After God's purpose was accomplished, however, the gifts ceased to be a normal part of the life of the church. Over a thousand years later, some Christians decided to reintroduce them into their small assemblies, but this doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes the gifts had long ceased to be part of the church. That God occasionally, during that time period, gifted an individual here or there is not denied but neither does it counter the point I was trying to explain.

By the way, in the case you described to us, it does not appear that there was any granting of any of the gifts to anybody. You prayed to God for healing and he granted your entreaty. That's different. He healed you directly.

Albion · Jan 3, 2019

Bible Highlighter · Jan 3, 2019

SPF said:
As far as pacifism. That idea is clearly at odds with what God teaches.

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

Pacifism is harmful
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.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

I would love to reply to this, but I do not have time at the moment.

May God bless you today.

SteveIndy · Jan 3, 2019

SPF said:
In my experience, the only cessationists I know are actually fellow Americans, or other people that live in the middle to upper class status in other first world countries, and they haven't done any missionary work overseas.

Satan's tactics are varied, and he'll do anything to lead people astray. He doesn't care if someone is led astray by being an atheist, or if someone is led astray by becoming extremely religious, just so long as they don't acknowledge Christ in their religiousness.

In America in particular, I think Satan's primary tactic is to simply convince people that religion is a thing of the past. God is nothing more than a "God of the gaps" where the more we fill in the gaps with knowledge, the less room there is for God. I think Satan works hard to make Christians (in America) think there are no such things as miracles anymore.

But that tactic doesn't work everywhere, though it is very effective here in America. However, I've seen miracles, I've experienced the healing of a multi-fractured foot through prayer.

For cessastionism to be true, it would necessarily mean the the healing of my broken foot 1 week before I was to leave on a mission trip was Satanic in nature. I personally can't think of why Satan would want my foot healed, but if so, I'm thankful he did because God was able to use me to reach many lost people.

As far as pacifism. That idea is clearly at odds with what God teaches.

Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?

Pacifism is harmful
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.

Luke 3:14 allows military service
It is significant that John the Baptist did not tell the soldiers to leave the military when they asked him what it meant to repent: "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, 'And what about us, what shall we do?' And he said to them, 'Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). Since it is, therefore, possible to live a godly life and yet be in the military, it must be because engaging in war is not always sinful.

John 18:36 acknowledges the right of the sword to earthly kingdoms
In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

Is it right for a Christian to fight in a war?
Since the Scriptures teach that it is right for a nation to engage in a just war, it follows that it is therefore right for a Christian to fight in such a war. Some have argued that non-Christians may fight in wars but believers may not, but this distinction is not found in Scripture. Scripture teaches that it is not sin for a government to engage in a just war, and there is therefore nothing that forbids Christian from being involved in just wars

Church and state must be distinguished
It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

To be a cessationist is not necessarily to mean that God is not able to perform miracles when and where He wants. It only means that a person, based on their experience, has no knowledge of miracles being performed today. Being a cessationist does not invalidate one's salvation. For all practical purposes, it does appear that miracles, which were initially used to validate early New Testament writings have ceased. Because a few people claim to have had unsubstantiated miracles or belong to a church, i.e. Catholic or Pentecostal, who propagate such things mean nothing. And, doing missionary work "overseas" likewise adds no credit to the account.

Pacifism, or rather non-resistance, as taught by Jesus in Matthew 5:39, is clearly taught and promoted in the New Testament contrary to your quotes.

You ask, "Did Jesus Teach Pacifism?" Yes, He did, as taught in His Sermon on the Mount. The Matthew 5:39 quote, "Resist not an evil person" is plain enough even if no other passage was mentioned, but there are others.

You claim that "Pacifism is harmful." You are looking at the subject from the position of an unbeliever who is not governed by Kingdom Christianity. Christ came to show His people a better way, a way that is contrary to the conventional wisdom of this world. Christ was teaching us to live as Kingdom Christians in this present world. Since we are now citizens of heaven and governed by the laws of that kingdom it is those laws that dictate our response to every situation that we might encounter while still in the flesh. We are to live spiritually and governed by the Spirit even though those laws and that life is at odds with the life we live in the flesh. Jesus prayed, "Thy kingdom come Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Now, my question is, will there be executions and retaliatory killing in heaven? Did Jesus live the life as an example that He expects us to live in this world? When Jesus told His followers to "Pick up your cross and follow Me" expect us to literately lay down our lives for our enemies, as He did, or were those just political words to win a following? When Jesus was asked by His disciples to call down fire from heaven and to destroy some Samarians His reply was emphatic that He "did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." Would you tell Jesus that His "pacifism is harmful"? Jesus would not save His own life when He had the power to do so. He would not resort to the tactics of the world to combat the Devil and sin, He used tactics that were mysterious and hidden from the world and that the world nor the Devil knew how to defeat, i.e. non-resistance. Your form of godliness is to murder the murderer which is exactly the way the world responds. If you have the power to stop an attack then you should stop it, but if you destroy life and then claim you are acting as Christ did you are seriously mistaken.

Christians are called out of the world. We are told to live separated lives as much as possible and to not bother with the affairs of this world. Yes, pay your taxes, yes, live exemplary lives in the workplace, help the poor and the weak and be a good person. Elections and political activism are of this world. Serving on juries that "judge" the enemies of society is of this world. Swearing allegiance to a flag and to everything it stands for is worldly. Being part of the military machinery is to be complicit in mass murder. All of these things are for the world so let the world have them it has nothing to do with kingdom life. The first 300 years of the Church lived the life Christ exemplified but after that the Church joined hands with the state; now the Church has much blood on its hands and good has become evil and evil good, just as Christ said it would.

Using the example of Hitler is just a scare tactic to get Christians to think about the flesh rather than faith in Christ. God instituted worldly government to be run by people of the world to handle people like Hitler. Leave Hitler to the world! This world is evil, run be a dictator, Satan, and it will progressively grow worse, but that is not the Christians business. The only force we are to use is the force of the Spirit. Jesus said, "If My kingdom were of this world then would My disciples use force."

Luke 3:14 does not allow military service as you suppose. To begin with John the Baptist was the last of the O.T. prophets and was under the old covenant which allowed for war because of the weakness of men's spirits (like divorce). Secondly, John did not ask the soldiers to leave the military, but likewise, he did not tell them to stay in the military, he only said to be satisfied. The primitive Church is full of examples of soldiers leaving the military for the sake of Christ and even giving their lives rather than serve. For Christians killing is always sinful and forbidden. Those who take up the sword will perish with the sword, remember Zwingli?

The "just war" doctrine is not taught in the N.T. Governments may engage in war because they are not under constraint by faith and trust in Jesus. God ordained government to keep the world from turning upside down, but that constraint will be removed in the end times. So called Christians who serve in the military may find themselves in that dreadful Valley one day battling against the Lord they say they serve.

You make the case that a Christian can serve two masters but the Bible does not make that claim. Those who make such a claim do not serve God; they have made their choice.

SPF · Jan 3, 2019

I still think I side more with John Piper than you.

What about turning the other cheek?
What, now, are we to make of Jesus' radical commands in Matthew 5:39-41? "Do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two." How does this fit with what we have seen above?

First, we need to clarify what the problem is not. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. That is clearly notwhat he is saying. Instead, he is telling us what it looks like "not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). We have all seen the wisdom of Jesus' words here in our everyday lives. Much of the time, the most effective way to overcome evil is by not resisting. If someone says a mean word, it is far more effective to respond with kindness than with another mean word in return. If someone tries wrongly to cut you off on the freeway, it is usually best just to let them do it. If we would learn these principles, our lives would be much more peaceful and, ironically, we would be vindicated more often.

So the problem is not that it looks as though Jesus is telling us to let evil steam-roll over us. The problem is that it looks like Jesus is telling us that the only way we should ever seek to overcome evil is by letting it go and responding with kindness. It looks as though he leaves no place for using force in resisting evil.

Part of the answer to this difficulty lies in understanding the hyperbolic nature of much of the Sermon on the Mount. I don't think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped any more than his command later in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 means that we should only pray when we are completely alone or his command in 5:29 means that some should literally gouge out their eyes. Jesus himself drove the thieves away from the temple with a whip (John 2:15) and Paul at times insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. also the interesting instance of 16:35-40). Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate what our primary disposition and attitude should be, not to say that we should literally give in to every attempt to do evil against us. That is part of the answer.

The main part of the answer, however, lies in remembering that Jesus is speaking primarily to individuals. He is not mainly addressing governments here, but is primarily speaking at the personal level. This text, then, shows that an individual's primary response to evil should be to "turn the other cheek," while the other texts we have seen (e.g., Romans 13:3-4) show that government's God-given responsibility is to punish those who commit civil crimes (murder, terrorism, acts of war, etc.). While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others. But it is right, however, for governments both to take measures of self-defense and to execute retribution.

There are, in other words, various "spheres" of life. God has willed that some spheres include responsibilities that are not necessarily included in other spheres. Personally, it would be wrong for us to execute retribution on people who harm us. But passages like Romans 13:3-4 and John 18:36 show that Jesus is not denying governments the right to execute retribution on evildoers. Therefore, when a Christian is under the authority of the government and authorized to fight in a just war on the nation's behalf, it is appropriate for him to fight. For he is not fighting as a private individual, but as a representative of the government to which God has given the power of the sword.

In doing so, a Christian soldier should strive to love one's opponents in war as people, remembering that he opposes them as agents of the opposing government/system, not as private individuals. When at war, we need to look at people in the opposing army/terrorist group at two levels--the private, and governmental/public. Because of the private level, the soldier should pray for and love the opposing soldiers. And because of the public level, the soldier fights against them--not as private individuals, but as public representatives of the system and evil that is being opposed. That distinction, I am sure, would be hard to maintain in battle. Neither would it remove the pain and difficulty of being involved in fighting against other human beings. But it is perhaps a faint reflection of how the personal and governmental spheres overlap and involve one another while still remaining distinct.

SteveIndy · Jan 3, 2019

SPF said:
I still think I side more with John Piper than you.

What about turning the other cheek?
What, now, are we to make of Jesus' radical commands in Matthew 5:39-41? "Do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two." How does this fit with what we have seen above?

First, we need to clarify what the problem is not. The problem is not that Jesus appears to be telling us to lie down and let evil overtake us. That is clearly notwhat he is saying. Instead, he is telling us what it looks like "not [to] be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). We have all seen the wisdom of Jesus' words here in our everyday lives. Much of the time, the most effective way to overcome evil is by not resisting. If someone says a mean word, it is far more effective to respond with kindness than with another mean word in return. If someone tries wrongly to cut you off on the freeway, it is usually best just to let them do it. If we would learn these principles, our lives would be much more peaceful and, ironically, we would be vindicated more often.

So the problem is not that it looks as though Jesus is telling us to let evil steam-roll over us. The problem is that it looks like Jesus is telling us that the only way we should ever seek to overcome evil is by letting it go and responding with kindness. It looks as though he leaves no place for using force in resisting evil.

Part of the answer to this difficulty lies in understanding the hyperbolic nature of much of the Sermon on the Mount. I don't think that Jesus is telling us never to respond to evil with force (such as in self-defense) or always to literally turn the other cheek when we are slapped any more than his command later in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:6 means that we should only pray when we are completely alone or his command in 5:29 means that some should literally gouge out their eyes. Jesus himself drove the thieves away from the temple with a whip (John 2:15) and Paul at times insisted on his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:11; cf. also the interesting instance of 16:35-40). Jesus is using hyperbole to illustrate what our primary disposition and attitude should be, not to say that we should literally give in to every attempt to do evil against us. That is part of the answer.

The main part of the answer, however, lies in remembering that Jesus is speaking primarily to individuals. He is not mainly addressing governments here, but is primarily speaking at the personal level. This text, then, shows that an individual's primary response to evil should be to "turn the other cheek," while the other texts we have seen (e.g., Romans 13:3-4) show that government's God-given responsibility is to punish those who commit civil crimes (murder, terrorism, acts of war, etc.). While it is sometimes appropriate even for individuals to use self-defense, it is never appropriate for individuals to seek to punish others. But it is right, however, for governments both to take measures of self-defense and to execute retribution.

There are, in other words, various "spheres" of life. God has willed that some spheres include responsibilities that are not necessarily included in other spheres. Personally, it would be wrong for us to execute retribution on people who harm us. But passages like Romans 13:3-4 and John 18:36 show that Jesus is not denying governments the right to execute retribution on evildoers. Therefore, when a Christian is under the authority of the government and authorized to fight in a just war on the nation's behalf, it is appropriate for him to fight. For he is not fighting as a private individual, but as a representative of the government to which God has given the power of the sword.

In doing so, a Christian soldier should strive to love one's opponents in war as people, remembering that he opposes them as agents of the opposing government/system, not as private individuals. When at war, we need to look at people in the opposing army/terrorist group at two levels--the private, and governmental/public. Because of the private level, the soldier should pray for and love the opposing soldiers. And because of the public level, the soldier fights against them--not as private individuals, but as public representatives of the system and evil that is being opposed. That distinction, I am sure, would be hard to maintain in battle. Neither would it remove the pain and difficulty of being involved in fighting against other human beings. But it is perhaps a faint reflection of how the personal and governmental spheres overlap and involve one another while still remaining distinct.

John Piper is a Calvinist. He has aligned himself with men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin who were murderers and did not believe Jesus but justify themselves so that they will not have to follow the Lamb who laid down His life for His enemies. You follow Piper I will follow Christ.

SPF · Jan 3, 2019

SteveIndy said:
John Piper is a Calvinist. He has aligned himself with men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin who were murderers and did not believe Jesus but justify themselves so that they will not have to follow the Lamb who laid down His life for His enemies. You follow Piper I will follow Christ.

rofl, now that's funny. The amount of pride you must possess to say that about those incredibly godly men is just ridiculous.

Celticroots · Jan 3, 2019

If someone attacks me, I WILL defend myself. Period.

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

Well-Known Member

Active Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency