Regarding War & Peace

[jeremiah]

if false prophets, teachers, or religions were physically removed from the earth, why would we be sure that everyone, who would have otherwise been decieved, just naturally repent and believe the gospel? i don't think this would necessarily follow. it would make the environment stacked in our favor but we still have jesus' parable of the sower.

I tend to be a black and white kinda guy!

yeah man i gathered that.

grace and peace,
jeremiah

[Ian]

I tend to be a black and white kinda guy!

I think you`re doing yourself a disfavour there, Rich. You ask questions. That implies to me you`re teachable for one thing.

[mattrose]

I think there are a number of problems with your interesting post

1. You wrote as if it is our "culture" that influences us to think that the violence of the crusades, the inquisition, and the reformers was not just. I'd say it was THEIR culture which influenced them to think it was. They were influenced by Constantine and Augustine and 'just war theory.'

2. If the church DID decide to kill false teachers, they would have committed double homicide. First, they would have killed the false teachers, but in so doing they would have killed the church's chances of ever reaching those left behind with the true message of Jesus! The 'end' in mind (protecting people from torment or extinction) would have LESS a chance of happening if we went to war in my opinion.

3. When we talk about the principle of non-violent resistence we are not actually talking about a call for the absence of all use of physical force. Biblically, disciplining our children requires some physical force, but it is corrective and protective. There may be times when physical force is required to protect and correct people in love. But this is very different from a plan that involves killing them. Physical discipline takes place in an individual context where lovingly correcting/protecting the wrongdoer is the goal. War takes place in a social context where freeing the 'innocent' is the goal. Killing the wrongdoers becomes a means to that goal, but it is an un-Christian means. I think Jesus point was that you actually can't reach a Christian end by non-Christian means b/c you lose your Christianity in the process.

4. I'm not sure why UR couldnt' still fall under your point. Wouldn't it be better to kill off false teachers than risk somebody having to go to Hell at all? If, under your premise, our killing of false teachers brought other people into the kingdom, wouln't that be better to do even if we're only helping them to avoid a year or 10, ro 100 in Hell?

[RICHinCHRIST]

I just spent some time responding to each of your 4 points, but My server crashed before I could post it. Rather than doing it all over again, I will just say I agree with your first three points. My main point in the original post was to try and underscore an inconsistency I see in the forcible resistance debate (as well as ET or CI).

Regarding point 3 though... Bonhoeffer seemed to have a clear conscience in doing an unChristian thing in order to bring about a Christian goal. Although I don't agree, it seems that sometimes one's conscience can accept an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy.

Regarding UR... I think that hell in UR is a good thing, whereas CI or ET punishment is merely punitive. Although hell in UR may be painful, at least it is not hopeless. The fire of God may have to purify someone, but this is in essence a good thing which leads to the glory of God and the restoration of the individual. If CI or ET is the future destination for the lost, then shouldn't we do as much as possible to save people from that end? Seems to me that if there was ever any justification for the just war theory, final eschatology would be a good motivating factor, since eternity is in the balance. But I digress... I intended to seal my hyper pacifism but have realized that I haven't thought this issue through enough. Dang! I was hoping to find another thing to disagree with Steve Gregg on!

[mattrose]

I don't think Bonhoffer had a clear conscience about the assassination attempt. I think he felt it was a sin, but the lesser of 2 sins. If he failed it was the failure to see a 3rd option. I don't think he felt the means was just, only that it was better than the other means.

If UR escapes the problem b/c hell becomes 'good' in that view... then I'd argue that CI escapes it too in large part. You suggest the idea of doing anything to save the lost from the 'hell' of the ET and CI views, but if we take the CI view as temproary in the sense that you are taking the UR view as necessary then you wouldn't be saving them from something bad, but from nothing at all.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I don't think Bonhoffer had a clear conscience about the assassination attempt. I think he felt it was a sin, but the lesser of 2 sins. If he failed it was the failure to see a 3rd option. I don't think he felt the means was just, only that it was better than the other means.

True, that's a better way to word it. Interesting concept, though. To sin in order to not sin! It brings in the question of moral hierarchy.

If UR escapes the problem b/c hell becomes 'good' in that view... then I'd argue that CI escapes it too in large part. You suggest the idea of doing anything to save the lost from the 'hell' of the ET and CI views, but if we take the CI view as temporary in the sense that you are taking the UR view as necessary then you wouldn't be saving them from something bad, but from nothing at all.

That is, only if the CI we're thinking of is "nothing at all". I suppose there are different views on it.

All this ambiguity sometimes makes my head spin. I just read this article and can't help but relating to it... I guess I'm just wired to suffer.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.co ... y-and.html