Pentecostal Pacifism

[Michael Snow]

I first ran across Jay Beaman's Pentecostal Pacifism at North American Baptist Seminary in Sioux Falls. It was his master's thesis. Early Pentecostal Pacifism

 

[Michael Snow]

I was in the library working on my own book on Christian pacifism. About | christianpacifism

 

[rocknanchor]

I was in the library working on my own book on Christian pacifism. About | christianpacifism

In the library on 'Christian Pacifism? I can support that, IF, that is what God called you to do. What I cannot support is the departure from what He calls others to do. Per your link,

“The principle teachers of patriotism maintaining nationalism were the churches, who have lost their spiritual power and been forsaken of God.” - Charles F. Parham, Everlasting Gospel

From one man he made all the nations [America], that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. - Acts 17:26​

“All this time we have taught that true Christians must not fight for “he that taketh the sword shall perish with the sword….” - Early Pentecostal Pacifism

Common broadstroke error,

“When I sent you out before, without purse or scrip, did you lack anything? ‘No” ‘BUT now, take your purse and scrip, and, if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and BUY one.” – Lord of all, Jesus Christ​

Yes, I am at peace with the fact that He has set some in the Church with quite different gifts from answered callings. The full measure of that in mind makes this matter of ‘Christian pacifism’ an oxymoron; a separatist teaching from the bond of the Spirit against folks like me.

 

[Michael Snow]

Library at N. Am. Baptist Seminary.

"I am the soldier of Christ: it is not lawful for me to fight.” --Martin of Tours​

The consistent witness of faithful Christians from the beginning.
Romans-12-13-in-context-sword

wordpress.com/2016/12/01/early-christian-quotes/

 

[rocknanchor]

I am the soldier of Christ

You didn't happen to be associated with A.L Williams years ago did you?

 

[hislegacy]

Library at N. Am. Baptist Seminary.

"I am the soldier of Christ: it is not lawful for me to fight.” --Martin of Tours​

The consistent witness of faithful Christians from the beginning.
Romans-12-13-in-context-sword

wordpress.com/2016/12/01/early-christian-quotes/

Perhaps you should be posting in the Baptist forum -

 

[Michael Snow]

Perhaps you should be posting in the Baptist forum -

The topic is the book, Pentecostal Pacifism.

 

[Michael Snow]

You didn't happen to be associated with A.L Williams years ago did you?

Sorry, never heard of him.

 

[rocknanchor]

What, we need to wait for the book for this thread to become active?

 

[Michael Snow]

From the book:
Assemblies of God
Resolution Concerning the Attitude of the General Council of the Assemblies of God Toward any Military Service which Involves the Actual Participation in the Destruction of Human Life.
While recognizing human Government as of divine ordination and affirming our unswerving loyalty to the Government of the United States, nevertheless we are constrained to define our position with reference to the taking of human life.
WHEREAS, in the Constitutional Resolution adopted at the Hot Springs General Council, April 1-10, 1914, we plainly declare the Holy Inspired Scriptures to be the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, and
WHEREAS the Scriptures deal plainly with the obligations and relations of humanity, setting forth the principles of “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14); and
WHEREAS we, as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, believe in implicit obedience to the Divine commands and precepts which instruct us to “Follow peace with all men,” (Heb. 12:14); “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exodus 20:13); “Resist not evil,” (Matt. 5:39); Love your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44): etc. and
WHEREAS these and other Scriptures have always been accepted and interpreted by our churches as prohibiting Christians from shedding blood or taking human life;
THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.
Weekly Evangel, August 4, 1917, p. 6.

 

[rocknanchor]

", , we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life"

Great! Now back to my earlier referencing a gift in some of our brothers, ,

For he is God's servant to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For He is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to the one doing evil. (Romans 13:4)​

It appears the "sword" is your "armed resistance". So far, I agree with, ,

Resist not evil,” (Matt. 5:39); Love your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44): etc.

But, the Christian servant above helps us to "not be overcome by evil". Some of us are equipped to "avenge", some of us are committed to "resist not". Are you saying the Church is to abandon "God's servant"?

 

[Richard T]

From the book:
Assemblies of God
Resolution Concerning the Attitude of the General Council of the Assemblies of God Toward any Military Service which Involves the Actual Participation in the Destruction of Human Life.
While recognizing human Government as of divine ordination and affirming our unswerving loyalty to the Government of the United States, nevertheless we are constrained to define our position with reference to the taking of human life.
WHEREAS, in the Constitutional Resolution adopted at the Hot Springs General Council, April 1-10, 1914, we plainly declare the Holy Inspired Scriptures to be the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice, and
WHEREAS the Scriptures deal plainly with the obligations and relations of humanity, setting forth the principles of “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” (Luke 2:14); and
WHEREAS we, as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, believe in implicit obedience to the Divine commands and precepts which instruct us to “Follow peace with all men,” (Heb. 12:14); “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exodus 20:13); “Resist not evil,” (Matt. 5:39); Love your enemies,” (Matt. 5:44): etc. and
WHEREAS these and other Scriptures have always been accepted and interpreted by our churches as prohibiting Christians from shedding blood or taking human life;
THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.
Weekly Evangel, August 4, 1917, p. 6.

Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.

From Wiki " The official pacifist position remained unchanged until 1967 when the denomination affirmed "the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant, a noncombatant, or a conscientious objector".[64] This was the culmination of a process begun during World War I, when it was unpopular to hold antiwar views, in which AG adherents questioned their denomination's pacifist stance.[65]

I think they have it right now leaving it to be an individual decision though as a whole most churches support the military and veterans wholeheartedly which to me is also a good thing.

 

[Michael Snow]

Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.

From Wiki " The official pacifist position remained unchanged until 1967 when the denomination affirmed "the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant, a noncombatant, or a conscientious objector".[64] This was the culmination of a process begun during World War I, when it was unpopular to hold antiwar views, in which AG adherents questioned their denomination's pacifist stance.[65]

I think they have it right now leaving it to be an individual decision though as a whole most churches support the military and veterans wholeheartedly which to me is also a good thing.

"Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God."--the Bottom Line

 

[Michael Snow]

The influence of John Wesley's holiness revival informed Pentecostalism
Wesley's view on war:

 

[Michael Snow]

Interesting that historically the Assembly of God shifted its positions based on events rather than the word of God.

From Wiki " The official pacifist position remained unchanged until 1967 when the denomination affirmed "the right of each member to choose whether to declare their position as a combatant, a noncombatant, or a conscientious objector"....

This was at the height of the Vietnam War protests and the Patriotic backlash.

Ironic that they chose that war to make the change.

On my defense of that war, see "Read Sample" feature, here on Amazon Click forward to "Chapter 1. The Struggle"

 

[rocknanchor]

From the book:
Assemblies of God
", , WHEREAS these and other Scriptures have always been accepted and interpreted by our churches as prohibiting Christians from shedding blood or taking human life;
THEREFORE we, as a body of Christians, while purposing to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizenship, are nevertheless constrained to declare we cannot conscientiously participate in war and armed resistance which involves the actual destruction of human life, since this is contrary to our view of the clear teachings of the inspired Word of God, which is the sole basis of our faith.
Weekly Evangel, August 4, 1917, p. 6."

Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.

From the AOG website on the Extensiveness of Pacifism:

CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING​

​

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1-3, 2015)​

​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

​

“, , scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).​

​

The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.”​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

To what extent does “punish evil” from AOGs citation of Romans 13 involve? Of course, but the use of instruments of personal harm to secure peace, including “death” (Matthew 26:52).

 

[Michael Snow]

Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.

From the AOG website on the Extensiveness of Pacifism:

CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING​

​

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1-3, 2015)​

​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

​

“, , scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).​

​

The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.”​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

To what extent does “punish evil” from AOGs citation of Romans 13 involve? Of course, but the use of instruments of personal harm to secure peace, including “death” (Matthew 26:52).

Regardless of trends and current ideologies that take root, the Word of God is always the bottom line. How is it, you chose to grant such an outdated position as though it still being used as a current position of the AOG? This thread isn’t as candid as it could be due to a dithering going on here.

From the AOG website on the Extensiveness of Pacifism:

CHURCH MISSION AND PEACEMAKING​

​

(ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL PRESBYTERY IN SESSION AUGUST 1-3, 2015)​

​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

​

“, , scriptures strongly support conflict resolution as an appropriate method to obtain peace when one is wronged or has wronged another (Matthew 5:23–26; 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Ephesians 2:14).​

​

The New Testament also recognizes and affirms the role of government in peacemaking and peacekeeping. “The authorities that exist have been established by God” and are “God’s servant for your good.” These authorities “bear the sword” as “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:1,4). While these biblical texts have no illusions about the moral impeccability of the authorities or their actual rule, it is clear that the divine mandate for government is to maintain justice and peace, and to defend against and punish evil.”​

BIBLICAL MEANS OF ACHIEVING PEACE​

To what extent does “punish evil” from AOGs citation of Romans 13 involve? Of course, but the use of instruments of personal harm to secure peace, including “death” (Matthew 26:52).

The Word of God is the Bottom Line. https://spurgeonwarquotes.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/spurgeons-top-eight-lost-quotes-on-christians-war/

 

[rocknanchor]

You appear fixated on the universal, while I maintain agreement with God's specific callings. If He equips His own "severally", why would I want to remain partial to the universal? Some, intensely passive, some harmoneously minister public tranquility, if necessary, by force.

 

[Michael Snow]

So, Any AOG care or have an interest in what was once fundamental to their beliefs?
[I have attended AOG weekly in past for several years, including while in Quaker Seminary]
https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_1

 

[rocknanchor]

So, Any AOG care or have an interest in what was once fundamental to their beliefs?
[I have attended AOG weekly in past for several years, including while in Quaker Seminary]

Could you elaborate? I don’t understand your position on the full measure of His grace?

Whether passivity or godly defiance against godless rebellion (Rom 13:2), who should oppose except for those who oppose the nature of this grace to equip thusly? The candidate knows the manner of His calling. Should we not champion that grace than any attempt to funnel it? The theologian knows this much all within the context of Romans 12:3.

While, however, we have different gifts, we should, be it prophecy that we have, make use of it according to the proportion of our faith,—be it diaconia that we have, labour within the diaconia,—be it that it is the teacher, (he should) be active within the sphere of teaching, etc, , In the contrary case they fall, in respect of contents and of form, ,insufficient and defective (not corresponding to the level of their faith). - Meyer

I maintain agreement with God's specific callings. If He equips His own "severally", why would I want to remain partial to the universal? Some, intensely passive, some harmoniously minister public tranquility, if necessary, by force.