Hello Thomas,
Thank you for clarifying what the current policies are, both of the American military and of the Geneva Convention. We certainly do live in a time where wars are conducted (at least by Western nations) with a much higher degree of civility than was true in ancient times. I think that the civilians among our military enemies can thank God and the influence of Jesus Christ for that fact.
I can see why many Christians feel more at liberty to participate in America's military today than felt free to participate in wars in ancient time. Nonetheless, I would not be able to place myself in a position where even the unintentional destruction of innocent lives was probable.
I would have to agree, along with scripture, that the outcome of certain wars is positive. I do not think, however, that every means employed to achieving such ends can meet with the approval of my Christian conscience.
Nonetheless, I am entirely sincere in saying that I do not condemn those who reach different conclusions from mine. Who am I to judge another man's servant? To his own Master he stands or falls.
God bless you, Brother!
Question for Steve (non-resistence)
I was actually concerned that this thread would turn into a discussion on war and so it has. However, I'm mostly concerned about whether or not it's acceptable for a Christian to defend himself when attacked by another party. If the words of Jesus in Matthew 5 are taken literally, it would appear that defending oneself is not allowed. However, if a man approached me in a threatening manner my first response would be to raise my arms and cover my face. If the attacker hits my elbow rather than my face and breaks his hand, have I responded incorrectly? In a technical sense, I've injured someone by defending myself from harm. If the person is a long way off, I have the option to flee. What are we to assume about the Christian response to personal safety?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
this is from the McGarvey Pendleton commentary-- seems to be a decent interpretation:
But I say unto you, resist not him that is evil. This command which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon, does not demand of absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We are to submit to evil for principle's sake and to accomplish spiritual victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so far encourage crime as to become a sin. As in the case of the precept about swearing just above, Jesus distributes the universal prohibition by the specification of certain examples, which in this case are three in number.
But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. This first example is taken from the realm of physical violence. The example given, a slap in the face, has been regarded as a gross insult in all ages, but it is not an assault which imperils life. We find this precept illustrated by the conduct of the Master himself. He did not literally turn the other cheek to be smitten, but breathed forth a mild and gentle reproof where he might have avenged himself by the sudden death of his adversary (John 18:22,23). The example of Paul also is given, but it is not so perfect as that of the Master (Acts 23:2-5). Self-preservation is a law of God giving rights which, under most circumstances, a Christian can claim. He may resist the robber, the assassin and all men of that ilk, and may protect his person and his possessions against the assaults of the violent and lawless (Acts 16:35-39). But when the honor of Christ and the salvation of man demands it, he should observe this commandment even unto the very letter.
TK
But I say unto you, resist not him that is evil. This command which enjoins non-resistance, like most of the other precepts of this sermon, does not demand of absolute, unqualified pacivity at all times and under all circumstances. In fact, we may say generally of the whole sermon on the mount that it is not a code for slaves, but an assertion of principles which are to be interpreted and applied by the children of freedom. We are to submit to evil for principle's sake and to accomplish spiritual victories, and not in an abject, servile spirit as blind followers of a harsh and exacting law. On the contrary, taking the principle, we judge when and how to apply it as best we can. Absolute non-resistance may so far encourage crime as to become a sin. As in the case of the precept about swearing just above, Jesus distributes the universal prohibition by the specification of certain examples, which in this case are three in number.
But whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. This first example is taken from the realm of physical violence. The example given, a slap in the face, has been regarded as a gross insult in all ages, but it is not an assault which imperils life. We find this precept illustrated by the conduct of the Master himself. He did not literally turn the other cheek to be smitten, but breathed forth a mild and gentle reproof where he might have avenged himself by the sudden death of his adversary (John 18:22,23). The example of Paul also is given, but it is not so perfect as that of the Master (Acts 23:2-5). Self-preservation is a law of God giving rights which, under most circumstances, a Christian can claim. He may resist the robber, the assassin and all men of that ilk, and may protect his person and his possessions against the assaults of the violent and lawless (Acts 16:35-39). But when the honor of Christ and the salvation of man demands it, he should observe this commandment even unto the very letter.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
I do not find Christ's example of turning the other cheek to be a prohibition against self defense.Rather I should think it would be related to a prohibition of escalating violence. One can certainly not act aggressively , and when confronted with violence one should not react violently , in order to defuse the situation. The end is a peaceful resolution.
You must consider also the cleansing if the Temple by Christ.
John 13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”
An act of violence , but one where no other action would have been effective. So I don't believe violence in and of itself is prohibited , Especially when it concerns self defense or in this instance , defense of whats right.
By extension war is an extension of individual action. What is moral for an individual is also moral for a nation. The concept of Just War is an extension of the personal to the collective action of nations.As such it is directly related. One cannot allow defense of family and at the same time prohibit defense of nation. The moral principle being the same.
Steve:
I respect your position. Fortunately , at this time , the Govt. does not require national service. So everyone may do according to his conscience. That is as it should be.
Thomas
You must consider also the cleansing if the Temple by Christ.
John 13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”
An act of violence , but one where no other action would have been effective. So I don't believe violence in and of itself is prohibited , Especially when it concerns self defense or in this instance , defense of whats right.
By extension war is an extension of individual action. What is moral for an individual is also moral for a nation. The concept of Just War is an extension of the personal to the collective action of nations.As such it is directly related. One cannot allow defense of family and at the same time prohibit defense of nation. The moral principle being the same.
Steve:
I respect your position. Fortunately , at this time , the Govt. does not require national service. So everyone may do according to his conscience. That is as it should be.
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_anothersteve
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
It would be interesting to see what particular scriptures caused this soldier to change his mind and become a pacifist.
Here's the article
Soldier Discharged
Here's the article
Soldier Discharged
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Avatar...My daughter and I standing on a glass floor. well over 1000 feet above ground at the CN Tower in Toronto...the tiny green dots beside my left foot are trees.
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY
What does a Christian do if he is in prison and another tries to rape him? Surely there is grace to resist given the nature of some circumstances.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_brody_in_ga
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: Richland Ga
I was thinking about this to once. And I don't think it is wrong to defend yourself or others.SoaringEagle wrote:What does a Christian do if he is in prison and another tries to rape him? Surely there is grace to resist given the nature of some circumstances.
Suppose a man were to break into your house and threaten to do bodily harm to your children and wife. I can honestly say that I would not hesitate to use lethal force.
My reasons are this:
1.) I am the physical head of my house(1 Cor 11). As such, my duty is to protect my family, which is following the command to be a good steward.
2.)The laws of the land permit such force if nessesary.
3.) If I just stood by and did nothing, my conscience would kill me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Hebrews 12:29
Hebrews 12:29