Pacifism Question

[throughfiierytrial]

Yes, thanks for the link...hope it refers to the Romans references too.

 

[ValleyGal]

One of them does have a short discussion on the Romans reference, which is where I got that the Centurion was not asked to leave his job. I don't recall all the specifics, though. In my denomination, it is more a matter of choice and personal conviction, knowing that we live in a fallen world and that war is an inevitable result of living in this world. For most of us, I don't think we would be able to kill even an enemy if they were standing in front of us, though. We'd likely offer to bake for them and have them for dinner, believing we can talk our differences out without the use of violence.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I don't know...do you say it is sin then to not be a pacifist as pertains to joining the military? Wouldn't that be a matter of frame of mind...motivation...protection of the country versus wanting to kill? I'm guessing you'd say protection via use of arms is not pacifism. It should be firmly established with Scripture for we are not to call sin what God sanctions and we are not to sanction what God calls sin.
Still haven't gotten to your reading...want to soon. Thanks for communicating!

 

[ValleyGal]

I'm not so sure it's sin, per se, but there are always consequences to breaking God's commands - one of which is you shall (should) not kill. There are a lot of things that are not good for us that are not exactly sin. It's not good for us to eat two chocolate bars instead of sharing one, but I doubt it's sin. God judges the heart, so it is only up to him whether a particular killing is sin. Moses killed and he suffered consequences (exile), but yet he had a very close relationship with God, was key in fulfilling God's purpose, and yet God still would not allow him into the promised land because he had killed someone. David was also denied special privilege due to killing, and there are others.

I'm sure there are some Anabaptist sects or denominations who consider any killing at all as sin. Some of us may consider certain killing as neutral - not sin, but certainly not good for our spiritual well-being. Spiritual well-being can be compromised if someone kills another, whether accidental, purposeful, or in self defense. Many who kill suffer from post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, self-loathing, anxiety, etc. While I believe in God's healing power, I am also not idealistic - it can have a drastically negative effect on someone's spiritual life. Between this and the spiritual consequences like removal of blessings (such as with Moses and David), most of us do not want to compromise the extent to which God can use and bless us because of broken commandments. Again, imo, as I do not speak for all Anabaptists.

 

[HonestTruth]

I don't know...do you say it is sin then to not be a pacifist as pertains to joining the military? Wouldn't that be a matter of frame of mind...motivation...protection of the country versus wanting to kill? I'm guessing you'd say protection via use of arms is not pacifism. It should be firmly established with Scripture for we are not to call sin what God sanctions and we are not to sanction what God calls sin.
Still haven't gotten to your reading...want to soon. Thanks for communicating!

Thomas Merton addressed that issue - he wrote that the centurion (like others who converted to Christianity) were assigned to constabulary duties, not military duties. Police were known as "peace officers" and were unarmed. I assume that this is what happened to that soldier as well.

 

[ParentofChildren]

Like your thoughts.

 

[sarwanov]

I personally have no idea and I am so sorry bro.

 

[muddleglum]

Our church starts off with what Christ said about His kingdom: it is not of this world. We don't care to call ourselves pacifists, in part because of this. We will fight with spiritual weapons for Christ's spiritual kingdom and the nuclear weapon of our arsenal is called Love.

If Christ is indeed in us, and He is doing His work through us, and His previous working while He was on earth got Him crucified, then shouldn't we, in Him, take up our cross? Or wouldn't it be more precise to say that abiding in the crucified one means that ego is continually crucified?

Paul, before he takes up the role of the world's gov't, said not to take vengeance for yourself. Then he goes on to talk about the world's gov't and that is when he says that the gov't should take vengeance. It is all in one context. Finally Paul returns to the Christian and talks about dealing with others in love, so we are back to loving our enemy again.

Of course, if Christ doesn't empower us, then we cannot help but allow our flesh to protect its interests.

 

[WhitherWhist]

I believe all forms of violence are opposed to the teachings of Christ, even if it can be justified by human invention.
Who would Jesus shoot, hit or bomb?

Instead, we are supposed to do GOOD things for our enemies, pray for them, feed, them, lend them money, make sure we consider their well-being as well as our own. There is no form of military service that seeks to be kind to the enemy. It is impossible to rationalize killing another human being while following the teachings of Christ.

 

[AGTG]

Pacifism must be viewed as a matter of personal conviction, and not a matter of doctrinal truth because of the lack of scriptural support. If we consider the "whole counsel of God" we would note that God recognizes there are times when evil men can only be restrained by force.

That being said, Christians should not put trust in their government, their guns, or their own ability to protect, deliver, or sustain themselves. Only Jesus is worthy of that honor.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I believe all forms of violence are opposed to the teachings of Christ, even if it can be justified by human invention.
Who would Jesus shoot, hit or bomb?

Instead, we are supposed to do GOOD things for our enemies, pray for them, feed, them, lend them money, make sure we consider their well-being as well as our own. There is no form of military service that seeks to be kind to the enemy. It is impossible to rationalize killing another human being while following the teachings of Christ.

This reasoning has the appearance of being holy...you overlook the Romans passages however in favor of your own reasoning or perhaps you just aren't acquainted with those teaching yet. Government is established by God and is given the authority to punish the wrongdoer. We are to live at peace as Jesus says, in that I agree with you, however, wrongdoers are to be punished by government...that's from speeding to stealing to murdering...the whole gamut...whatever the government has set up as law in efforts to keep the peace and orderliness. Government has God-given authority to go to war for just cause in protection of its people and to punish their own citizens...even to death sentence: see below, "government bears the sword". Some Christians serve us in the government and bear those swords in various capacities.
Romans 13:1-5:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

 

[Caretaker]

So, then, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others like them were put in power by God, who also commands his followers to obey them?

So, why did the wise men disobey Herod, the authority "which God has established", and return home by a different route?

Perhaps we need to pay more attention to this part: "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." This statement qualifies the entire passage.

Remember, everything that exists was created by God. The Bible tells us God is responsible for all of creation, including the good and the bad. That knowledge also adds another dimension to the first part of Romans 13.

 

[farout]

OK...first of all, this is my first post so greetings to everyone!!

I was born and raised a Southern Baptist, I came to know Christ as a Southern Baptist, I attend a Southern Baptist church currently, I have a Biblical Studies degree from a Baptist college and most of my theology is Baptist...I bring that up because for about a year I have found what seems to be discrepancies in the way I have always been taught to live compared to what Jesus commanded. Recently I found a podcast from a Brethren In Christ church and am floored at the focus on Christ and love. The last few sermons I listened to moved me close to tears because the words resonated with my heart. Evidently it is possible to have traditional theology (i.e. abortion, homosexuality...etc., etc.) and still love people.

Anyway, the issue I am having is on pacifism. I served 11 years in the military, between the Marine Corps and Army. I never truly harbored hate against anyone I had to fight and did not specifically enjoy firing my weapon at another human being but I was ok with it because I was defending my brothers and sisters in uniform. Even now I seek peace with everyone and do not condone violence except as a last resort in defense of persons. In all honesty I would have a hard time not defending my family or those who cannot defend themselves. Is this way of thinking allowed within the Anabaptist way of thought? What is meant by pacifist?

Thanks for your time!

God Bless!!

I too, but as an adult of age 37 went to a SB college and SB Seminary. I did not experience any incongruity in what I was taught and what Jesus taught and the Bible so clearly says. I can't help but wonder what college you went to and when. I do know Calvinism seems to be what a good amount of teaches are thinking these days. I do not accept all of Calvinism> more specifically I think it's far better to read the scripture and write down Theological important issues one at a time. Then make your own paper on Doctrine you see in the Bible, but NT most of all. I like the London Baptist Confession of I think 1864.

A pacifists will not join the arm forces, but will do work that does not involve fighting. Some pacifists have gone in the services as medics. I have no problem taking the position you are considering. However having already been in the service it may have little impact now.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So, then, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others like them were put in power by God, who also commands his followers to obey them?
So, why did the wise men disobey Herod, the authority "which God has established", and return home by a different route?
Perhaps we need to pay more attention to this part: "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." This statement qualifies the entire passage.
Remember, everything that exists was created by God. The Bible tells us God is responsible for all of creation, including the good and the bad. That knowledge also adds another dimension to the first part of Romans 13.

What a naive in interpretation, I really must say.
Are you then concluding we should throw Romans 13:1-5 out of the Scriptures? Let's just say we disagree!
ALL Scripture must be held up to counterpoint Scripture. Here are some counterpoint Scripture to Romans 13:1-5:

We must obey God rather than man...Acts 5:29

So then one is always obligated to make moral and spiritual decisions.
And see the passage below...these very difficult decisions need at time to be made even within the family itself and about a family member's decisions and actions.


“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ Matthew 10:34-36

Again, we all have a serious amount of spiritual discernment to practice in life and you cannot ignore any passages or parts of passages simply because you feel it is wrong.

 

[Caretaker]

We're in agreement that scripture cannot be ignored.

And we're in agreement that we must obey God rather than man.

But aren't you ignoring these scriptures, among others?

Luke 6:27-36
Matthew 5:38-48
Romans 12:9-21
Matthew 10:38-39
Matthew 26:52
Luke 10:25-37
1 John 2:3-6
John 14:23-24

And recall that God used the Babylonians as an instrument of his justice against the disobedient Israelites. The Babylonians were doing God's will. But I see no indication that the Babylonians' destruction of Jerusalem earned them a place in heaven.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

We're in agreement that scripture cannot be ignored.

And we're in agreement that we must obey God rather than man.

But aren't you ignoring these scriptures, among others?

Luke 6:27-36
Matthew 5:38-48
Romans 12:9-21
Matthew 10:38-39
Matthew 26:52
Luke 10:25-37
1 John 2:3-6
John 14:23-24

And recall that God used the Babylonians as an instrument of his justice against the disobedient Israelites. The Babylonians were doing God's will. But I see no indication that the Babylonians' destruction of Jerusalem earned them a place in heaven.

Happy we are in agreement and yes, I could have listed all the passages you have listed and then some along side the Acts and Matthew passages I briefly cited to illustrate counterpoint passages often exist which means we use spiritual discretion as is most remarkable demonstrated in the Acts passage I cited. This still does not negate the Romans 13:1-5 passages. It remains that we must use spiritual discernment in all our life dealings...even when dealing with family or say some brother or sister in Christ perhaps less mature in the faith and/or less mature in understanding of the Word and its spiritual concepts.
Remember, even Roman centurions were commended by Jesus for great faith. You must live according to your conscience or it is sin for you, but there are righteous wars...the opposing sides to all those dictators you named above. There are police officers who take up the sword to defend the weak and to keep the peace and order of society. Those who hold these honorable positions face spiritual decisions frequently...but then don't we also face grave spiritual decisions everyday as Christians as well?...we must take up the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.

 

[Caretaker]

True Christians are not pacifists if the traditional definition of pacifism, which is that physical weapons (the weapons of this world) are not used, is changed to include spiritual weapons. Christians do engage in spiritual warfare using the sword of the Spirit, along with all the other spiritual weapons in Ephesians 6:10-17. But the Kingdom of God is not of this world. If it were, its leader (and followers) would fight with the weapons of this world (John 18:36).

The centurion was commended for his faith, not for being a centurion. Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) I am sure there were many things in the centurion's life, as with all our lives, that were sinful in nature. Because Jesus commended the centurion for his faith we cannot assume that all other aspects of his life, including his profession, were in accordance with the will of God.

God is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:13). A house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). So God cannot - and does not - at one place in his word prohibit behavior that he approves in other places in his word.

The notion that one's own conscience must dictate one's own actions is not of God. Deciding to follow Christ means dying to oneself, being crucified with Christ, and living in Christ (Romans 6-8). It is the mind of Christ that his disciples seek - and have (1 Corinthians 2:16).

The proposition that it is OK or even possible for disciples of Christ to use the weapons of this world against others while simultaneously loving and doing good to the same people they are slaughtering is utter madness.

When we see such gross contradictions what is clear is that some portion of God's word is being misunderstood or misconstrued. The overwhelming preponderance of scripture is clear: God is love (1 John 4:7-21), and God requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31). To understand the nature of God's love study 1 Corinthians 13.

Accordingly, an interpretation of the first five verses of Romans 13 that contradicts what is clearly stated in the final 13 verses of Romans 12, as well as in so many other places in the New Testament, is clearly incorrect.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

True Christians are not pacifists if the traditional definition of pacifism, which is that physical weapons (the weapons of this world) are not used, is changed to include spiritual weapons. Christians do engage in spiritual warfare using the sword of the Spirit, along with all the other spiritual weapons in Ephesians 6:10-17. But the Kingdom of God is not of this world. If it were, its leader (and followers) would fight with the weapons of this world (John 18:36).

The centurion was commended for his faith, not for being a centurion. Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) I am sure there were many things in the centurion's life, as with all our lives, that were sinful in nature. Because Jesus commended the centurion for his faith we cannot assume that all other aspects of his life, including his profession, were in accordance with the will of God.

God is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:13). A house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). So God cannot - and does not - at one place in his word prohibit behavior that he approves in other places in his word.

The notion that one's own conscience must dictate one's own actions is not of God. Deciding to follow Christ means dying to oneself, being crucified with Christ, and living in Christ (Romans 6-8). It is the mind of Christ that his disciples seek - and have (1 Corinthians 2:16).

The proposition that it is OK or even possible for disciples of Christ to use the weapons of this world against others while simultaneously loving and doing good to the same people they are slaughtering is utter madness.

When we see such gross contradictions what is clear is that some portion of God's word is being misunderstood or misconstrued. The overwhelming preponderance of scripture is clear: God is love (1 John 4:7-21), and God requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30-31). To understand the nature of God's love study 1 Corinthians 13.

Accordingly, an interpretation of the first five verses of Romans 13 that contradicts what is clearly stated in the final 13 verses of Romans 12, as well as in so many other places in the New Testament, is clearly incorrect.

You clearly do not understand me and to the point that you are misrepresenting me in your regurgitation of my words (which is quit false on your part) and so I end my part here except to say that you are still denying the Romans passages. They say we do bear the sword...and God instituted all governments and their sword-bearing authority. I don't mind you giving your own point of view or refuting me, but I strongly object to having you distorted and twist my beliefs. I have offered my points and I trust that God will lay them on your heart if not now then in time.

 

[Caretaker]

You clearly do not understand me and to the point that you are misrepresenting me in your regurgitation of my words (which is quit false on your part) and so I end my part here except to say that you are still denying the Romans passages. They say we do bear the sword...and God instituted all governments and their sword-bearing authority. I don't mind you giving your own point of view or refuting me, but I strongly object to having you distorted and twist my beliefs. I have offered my points and I trust that God will lay them on your heart if not now then in time.

I have not attempted to distort or twist your beliefs, nor misrepresent you, and don't believe I have done so. I have attempted to counter a misunderstanding of the first five verses of Romans 13. Hopefully our purpose here is not to tout or push our own beliefs, but instead to test and improve our understanding of God's word and his will in our lives. We need to be seeking the mind of Christ, or to put it more colloquially, to try to answer the question, "What would Jesus do"?

As I have previously pointed out, we must remember that the authorities in "...for there is no authority except that which God has established ... The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1) include Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and many others, many of whose actions were clearly evil. So when you identify with "authorities" you identify with many "authorities", including the Babylonians that God used to punish the Israelites for forsaking him. The authorities crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, crucified Peter, and martyred more than 3,000 others (see The Martyr's Mirror). Certainly it is not correct to claim that these authorities were all and always doing the will of God, even though we know that God has sometimes used them to do his will. Again, God also commanded the wise men to disobey Herod, an authority established by God. As we have agreed, it is necessary to disobey the authorities when to obey them would require disobedience to God (Acts 5:29).

To understand Romans 13:1-5 we must understand Romans 13:3-4: "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Note the word, "For" that begins verse 3. That makes clear that the preceding two verses must be understood in light of the third and fourth verses.

So, what if a ruler does go after those who do right instead of commending them? Obviously, then that ruler is not acting in his intended capacity of being "God's servants". What should a soldier do who is asked to go after those who do right instead of wrong? Even the US's Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires a soldier to disobey an illegal order, which is consistent with Acts 5:29 which makes clear that it is necessary to obey a higher authority when in conflict with a lower authority.

So, how did a soldier get himself into a position where he might have to disobey those who give him orders? He disobeyed Paul's admonition to not be "unequally yoked" in 2 Corinthians 6:14. For similar reasons many Anabaptists won't even work for an employer that is not Anabaptist, and often the employer must be of the same Anabaptist sect.

It is central to note that Romans 13:1-5 is consistent with Jesus' words in Matthew 5:39, "... do not resist an evil person", and, indeed, with the entire passage in Matthew 5:38-42. It is also consistent with Jesus' words in Matthew 23:1-3a. But if we continue with Matthew 23:3b-4 we find Jesus also saying, "But do not do what they do".

We also read in Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose". So, while God intends the governing authorities to be his servants, they, like we, do not always follow the will of God. But God uses all things for his purpose - even governing authorities like the Babylonians who did not seek to live according to the will of God. And we shouldn't over-emphasize the fact that governing authorities were established by God as everything that exists was created by God - good and evil (Isaiah 45:7). God uses all his creation for his purposes.

But those who love Jesus obey his commandments, and those who don't love Jesus don't obey his commandments (John 14:23-24).

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" Romans 12:14). "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" (Romans 12:17a). "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).

At one time it was common Anabaptist understanding that Christians could be neither soldiers nor policemen because to do so would be incompatible with being a disciple of Christ. Today some who claim to be Anabaptists have strayed from this original understanding. Anabaptists sprang out of a "Christian" religion that had departed from the ways of the early church, and with the desire to return to the teachings of Jesus. Just as the church from which the Anabaptists sprang had departed from the teachings of Jesus, so today some who call themselves "Ababaptists" have also departed from the teachings of Jesus.

 

[AGTG]

So, then, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others like them were put in power by God, who also commands his followers to obey them?

So, why did the wise men disobey Herod, the authority "which God has established", and return home by a different route?

Perhaps we need to pay more attention to this part: "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." This statement qualifies the entire passage.

Remember, everything that exists was created by God. The Bible tells us God is responsible for all of creation, including the good and the bad. That knowledge also adds another dimension to the first part of Romans 13.

That's a good question, though I really wish you termed in a way that gives room for the possibility that the wickedness of man is never God's fault, which we know to be true.

The civil authorities that rise up over a people, and are "allowed" by God, are under massive influence of the principalities and powers which rule and reign in any particular city, state, nation.

These principalities and powers are established in the most democratic way. Each heart gets a vote. If the people wish to honor and follow God, the principalities and powers will be godly ones, holy, angelic forces, that will help to establish leaders which respect the liberty and lives of the people they are over.

If the people turn away from God, or simply prefer to honor pagan gods (which are merely demonic entities) then they will end up with a wicked principality, and a wicked civil authority.

It's God's intention that all men find their way to Him, but He does not force anything as that would go against His nature. He wants a genuine relationship based upon love, and that means mankind has to chose Him.