Raise your hand and say "Aye"!

[arunma]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

I'm not quite the pacifist that you are, Sister Lambslove, since I agree with Saint Augustine's just war theology. That said, I am no fan of war, and I think that governments and nations should make every effort to avoid it. The Lord's will is peace rather than war, otherwise he would not be the God of peace, and he would not have turned the nation of Israel into a multinational church with no central government or army. So I will simply say that if we must resist violence with more violence, then we ought to do so with sorrow and unceasing anguish.

But let me add one more qualification. As C.S. Lewis taught, we ought not to require soldiers to do their duties sorrowfully. When I say that we should engage in violence as a last resort, "we" refers to governments. People who serve in the military can certainly do their duty with joy in the Lord, as if serving the Lord.

What do you mean by a sword?

I'm not baiting you, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. What does it mean in the real world? What is a sword in terms of today's world?

Did Jesus mean for Christians to raise a sword or is that something that is his domain only?

Perhaps the Lord Christ was referring to this:

From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)
​

You will of course remember our earlier discussion on the Hammer of Jeremiah. Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), this is most likely the word about which Christ was speaking.

 

[RajunCajun86]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

"aye!"
as punishment dictated by our court system
as a retaliation of our military force
oh and parents correcting their children
"aye!"

 

[TwinCrier]

It does?

When did that ever happen?

I think in real life it works this way:

You kill me.
My family/nation/gang kills you.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in my family/nation/gang.
Repeat...
1000 years later...
My family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.

The whole war in Bosnia was started in 1000 AD between two warring religious factions. It's still going on today, in a more subdued and less reported-on way.

Killing only propagates killing.

True, but the way it SHOULD work in real life is:
Someone kills someone
they are given a trial and proven guilty
They are put to death
they kill no more
others give more careful thought before comitting murder.

 

[IisJustMe]

The Lord's will is peace rather than war, otherwise he would not be the God of peace, and he would not have turned the nation of Israel into a multinational church with no central government or army. [emphasis added, obviously]

Replacement Theology is unbiblical. The church has not "replaced" Israel, but joined her as the beneficiary of God's promises, though ours are to be found in heaven, and Israel's on earth in the Thousand Year Reign. God is not a liar, and His promises to Israel stand. There was no requirement on Israel for fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, when God sealed the covenant by walking among the severed sacrificial animals, He had put Abraham into a deep sleep, thus putting no onus on Abraham or the great nation he fathered for the covenant to be fulfilled. At Christ's return, it will be.

So I will simply say that if we must resist violence with more violence, then we ought to do so with sorrow and unceasing anguish. But let me add one more qualification. As C.S. Lewis taught, we ought not to require soldiers to do their duties sorrowfully. When I say that we should engage in violence as a last resort, "we" refers to governments. People who serve in the military can certainly do their duty with joy in the Lord, as if serving the Lord.

Amen. Do not revel in the violence, but pray for those who have forced us to do violence on them by their own acts of violence toward us.

What do you mean by a sword? ... I'm not baiting you, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. What does it mean in the real world? What is a sword in terms of today's world? ... Did Jesus mean for Christians to raise a sword or is that something that is his domain only?

Since Arunma addressed this in his post as an extension of the issue I just took issue with (did everyone follow that? Sorry for being so confounding here ...) I'd just like to add this thought.

Jesus came in peace for His earthly ministry. His intent was obedience to the Father, and through that obedience, to put an end to the enmity between man and God created by man's sin. God still loved us completely, but our sin prevented us from truly enjoying His fellowship, the rare exception being such men as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Josiah, Hezekiah, Isaiah, and others. I'm sure there were many unnamed men of Israel who enjoyed that fellowship also, but the text of the Bible seems to indicate most of Israel was a stiffnecked and obstinate bunch. Still, they were individually separated from God, not the nation, because God does not renege on his Promises.

Jesus came for the rest of us, those who could not peer through the fogs and mists of Christ Concealed (as the Old Testament can be described) to see God's purpose. Jesus declared peace, and way to surrender in the war of sin and death. That message has gone worldwide in the ensuing 1,976 years since the cross. When Jesus comes again, He will come in judgment of those who have refused the message. The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarrying. The other is, despite the statements of many evangelicals that "all prophecy necessary for Christ to return is fulfilled," is erroneous. In Ezekiel 39, a prophecy of an air and ground attack on Israel that is miraculously struck down by the hand of God, requiring the nation seven months' of clean up, is before the Tribulation, and has obviously not yet occurred.

All this to say, Jesus is coming in judgment, with a sword, which is His word, but will be just as sharp and two-edged as any Paul saw the Romans carry strapped to their sides, and even more deadly. God's word is deadly to those who reject it as the truth. It is that sword that Christ will wield to bring judgment and death on an unbelieving world.

 

[TwinCrier]

"aye!"
as punishment dictated by our court system
as a retaliation of our military force
oh and parents correcting their children
"aye!"

Good point. I wonder if those that oppose taking action against attack and justly executing criminals also throw out all the scripture about beating disobedient children. How much scripture must a pacifist delete in order to uphold their doctrine?

 

[RajunCajun86]

The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarrying

amen, lets saddle up and GO

 

[seebs]

FWIW, given that violence towards children doesn't actually seem to work nearly as well as other forms of discipline, I guess I don't think of it as much of a loss.

One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.

In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room.
He then asked the youth,

"Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"

"Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.


"That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left.​

 

[RED that's ME]

There will never be anything such as world peace. If you study the end times in the Bible it only gets worse. The only *peace* we have is an internal peace with God. Jesus is called the *Prince of Peace* cause of the what he done on Calvary to reconcile us with God.
We should try and live peaceable with others but sometimes war is necessary.

World Peace/ Biblically

 

[ZiSunka]

True, but the way it SHOULD work in real life is:
Someone kills someone
they are given a trial and proven guilty
They are put to death
they kill no more
others give more careful thought before comitting murder.

If only real people would cooperate with your plan.

 

[ZiSunka]

The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarrying.

What is your Biblical basis for saying that?

 

[aReformedPatriot]

What is your Biblical basis for saying that?

I agree, there is none. The fact that the Lord is tarrying is not in the least contingent upon man's failure. God is soveriegn and acts according to his inclinations alone without coerecion from the outside.

 

[ZiSunka]

Perhaps the Lord Christ was referring to this:

From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)

​

You will of course remember our earlier discussion on the Hammer of Jeremiah. Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), this is most likely the word about which Christ was speaking.

But that's about the final judgment, and has nothing to do with Christians taking up weapons and going to war.

 

[ZiSunka]

I'm not quite the pacifist that you are, Sister Lambslove, since I agree with Saint Augustine's just war theology.

I wasn't just speaking specifically about war.

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

 

[Razorbuck]

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

I know this is directed at brother arunma, but if I might chime in...

It depends on the level of violence. If smitten on one cheek, I'll turn to my antagonist the other also. (This has actually happened to me while street-preaching) If he's about to make my wife a widow and my children fatherless, then I am going to act to remove the threat in the most expedient way available, up to and including violence upon his person.

To deprive my family of it's provider by neglecting to defend my own life would be folly.

 

[arunma]

I wasn't just speaking specifically about war.

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

I see you're discussing personal violence. I would say that in most cases, it is not prudent to respond to violence with violence.

 

[Joykins]

Here's some of that context that seebs is open to:

32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Based on this context, I believe that the "sword" is what is wielded against believers, by the world. Certainly the early persecutions and martyrdoms support that as well.

 

[ZiSunka]

I know this is directed at brother arunma, but if I might chime in...

It depends on the level of violence. If smitten on one cheek, I'll turn to my antagonist the other also. (This has actually happened to me while street-preaching) If he's about to make my wife a widow and my children fatherless, then I am going to act to remove the threat in the most expedient way available, up to and including violence upon his person.

To deprive my family of it's provider by neglecting to defend my own life would be folly.

Have you ever just gotten yourself out of there before it can turn deadly?

And, is violence the BEST way to react to violence?

 

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Joykins again.
​

 

[IisJustMe]

Have you ever just gotten yourself out of there before it can turn deadly?

It isn't predictable or obvious in many cases. A guy on PCP can be walking down the street acting mostly normal and suddenly "snap" and render violence on anyone he chose. It's not likely anyone is going to subdue a PCP addict on a freak-out, but if he's on top of you before you can even react, I'd suggest violence over pleading with him to stop.

And, is violence the BEST way to react to violence?

No. Compromise, discussion, give-and-take diplomacy is always preferrable. If none of those work, just leaving is also a good choice. But sometimes, none of these things are options. No offense, but if you've never experienced such a situation, it is no wonder you can't conceive of being unable to talk or run instead of striking back. You really need to understand the context in which Jesus spoke of "turning the other cheek," because He spoke of just such a situation in offering it.

If a man struck you on the right cheek, he either struck you with his left (non-sword) hand, or backhanded you with his sword hand. In either case, it was considered an emotional reaction that may or may not be followed by a more severe attack. The purpose in "offering the other cheek" as Jesus preached was to determine if, in fact, deadly intent was in the heart of the attacker. It required the attacker to either strike with a closed fist or his sword, (a clear indication of intent to do bodily harm if not murder) and suggested self-defnese was certainly in order. One can see how this entire process could take less than two full seconds, which is not enough to time to engage in diplomacy or run away.

Of course, turning the other cheek also gave the attacker an opportunity to consider just how seriously he wanted his follow-up to be. Hesitation, or reluctance to follow up the first blow, would indicate that first blow was a rash decision, and while the right cheek would sting for a few minutes or a couple days, the ensuing engagement in discussion that should result from that hestiation would save both men a lifetime of pain and sorrow -- even if otherwise one of them would experience that "lifetime" for just a few more seconds.

Jesus was not saying "Never engage in violence." He was using the example out of real life to show how and when it might be necessary.

 

[arunma]

Replacement Theology is unbiblical. The church has not "replaced" Israel, but joined her as the beneficiary of God's promises, though ours are to be found in heaven, and Israel's on earth in the Thousand Year Reign. God is not a liar, and His promises to Israel stand. There was no requirement on Israel for fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, when God sealed the covenant by walking among the severed sacrificial animals, He had put Abraham into a deep sleep, thus putting no onus on Abraham or the great nation he fathered for the covenant to be fulfilled. At Christ's return, it will be.

This is far off topic, but I certainly do believe that the church is the Israel of God. In fact, this is the position that the church fathers took, so it is by no means a new theology. If you'd like to start a new thread and discuss this, I'd be interested.