Regarding War & Peace

[RICHinCHRIST]

I read the following quote on Matt's latest update on his war and peace thread. I wanted to create a new thread so we don't hijack his.

Besides, any man against whom it can be proved that he is a maker of sedition is outside the law of God and Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well.

Let me be upfront and mention that I lean toward total pacifism. I don't think war or aggressive force/resistance should necessarily be employed in any circumstance. When I've heard Steve talk about this, I at first resonated with his position that sometimes it may be ethical to intervene and fight on someone else's behalf in order to defend an innocent party. However, after thinking more about it, I do not think it's possible to take his position to its most logical end.

If someone is open to the possibility of forcibly resisting someone in order to protect the innocence of another party, then they must be open to doing that in all circumstances and in every way.

If it is possible to fight a just war, what constitutes it to be just? Is it solely the fact that an innocent party's earthly life or liberty is in jeopardy? If that's the case, then I could see why a more neutral position is acceptable. However, if it's more than just their earthly life in jeopardy (but their eternal destiny), then should we not go to war against all false religions? Why? Because their theology is leading toward more than just their own personal opinions, but they are also influencing other people to reject Jesus, which will merit their eternal destruction (if CI or ECT is true). This seems to be a much more serious offense than just killing innocent people (like in the case of Nazi Germany). In other words, so called "just" wars fought in this life are justified by saying innocent lives are being jeopardized. Therefore, if we want to "love our neighbor" we must defend them. But what about defending them against false religions which are delivering people to hell by the thousands? If Conditional Immortality or Eternal Torment is true, is it not more important to forcibly resist these people who are leading people to hell? One would respond, "Well of course not. We are not to fight our way into converting people". Well, that's our culture which influences our views. The Crusaders, and even the early Reformers didn't think this way because they really did believe in eternal torment. They really did think that killing Muslims saved people from being deceived in the future and later ending up in eternal hell. And if they're right, is this not an expression of "loving your neighbor"?

I don't know if I'm expressing my thoughts the best I can. In other words, if those views of hell are really true, would it not be a justifiable risk to take in eradicating all Muslims so their doctrines no longer corrupt future generations?

I've heard that there was an important battle in France in the Crusades (I forgot the specific battle). But I heard that if the Muslims had won, they most likely would have converted all of Europe and would have most likely taken the place of Christianity as the most prominent religion in the world. Think about it. If they didn't fight that war and win, then we would all most likely be Muslim today!

I'm undecided on this issue. I lean toward total pacifism. But I think that you can only go one way or the other. It's kind of like Calvinism and Arminianism. You either have to be a 5-point Calvinist or a 5-point Arminian to be logically consistent. If we really want to say that fighting wars to protect innocent people is just, then we must be willing to go and fight wars against those who are leading people to eternal hell (CI or ET). Yes, we might send the people we kill to hell... but at least we can save the future generations from their influence! I know this sounds crass (this is why I lean toward total pacifism). I don't see how we can logically remain in the middle without contradicting ourselves. If UR is true, then it doesn't seem to pose this kind of problem. But those who hold to CI or ET, or to the idea of just wars, would they not have to admit that "loving our neighbor" is more than just protecting their earthly life, but also their afterlife?

Maybe I'm not seeing things clearly enough, so I'm open to anyone else commenting and shedding some light.

[TK]

Rich wrote:

Good questions.

You wrote:

In other words, if those views of hell are really true, would it not be a justifiable risk to take in eradicating all Muslims so their doctrines no longer corrupt future generations?

Lets assume ET is proven to be 100% true. Who would be doing the Muslim eradicating? It seems you are suggesting that the Christians should do so (if it was decided that it had to be done).

Quite frankly I think the Muslims would kick our butts-- unless of course the Lord was on our side. Christians, particularly in the west, are likely rather soft.

The Lord has not convicted me about going after Muslims. If he is not convicting a very large % of Christians about this, can we assume that is probably not what He is looking for?

TK

[RICHinCHRIST]

Lets assume ET is proven to be 100% true. Who would be doing the Muslim eradicating? It seems you are suggesting that the Christians should do so (if it was decided that it had to be done).

Quite frankly I think the Muslims would kick our butts-- unless of course the Lord was on our side. Christians, particularly in the west, are likely rather soft.

The Lord has not convicted me about going after Muslims. If he is not convicting a very large % of Christians about this, can we assume that is probably not what He is looking for?

TK

I also have no conviction to kill Muslims. The Scriptures clearly state that we don't fight against flesh and blood, and that as much as depends on us, we are to live peaceably with all men. I also tend to take a more literal interpretation of Matthew 5 in regards to non-resistance. The Scriptures make me lean toward total pacifism. I personally think that God can defend us if He wants to and that we wouldn't have to fight back.

What I was saying was that if ET or CI were true, would it not be justifiable to say that going to war against Muslims (or any other false teaching) would be the most loving thing to do in light of eternity?

This is what the Crusaders thought when they fought against the Muslims. And also, the Catholics and Reformers saw it virtuous to kill heretics. The Catholics threatened Luther, and Calvin killed a few people also. Zwingli killed thousands of Anabaptists. All in the name of trying to preserve the truth and the life of the Church. Is it not justifiable if ET is true? If you knew a false prophet and that he was going to lead hundreds of people astray, would it not be wise to kill him in the name of truth? Those who believe we should defend innocent people would have to say yes. I don't have to say yes because I believe that God allows false prophets and false religions for a reason (to test people). If the Muslims did win that war in France, I think God could have preserved a remnant, or brought revival elsewhere. It is not necessary that we had to fight against them. But I've heard that the Muslims were the one who were forcibly attacking Europe, so they responded in defense. Even still, the ethical problem remains.

[Jill]

...( just passing by. on "War&Peace". The Civil War was on USA soil post 1776's freedom from great britian July 4th. Anything off shore seems, now that I am out of high school, not ok, and has left the USA at a great loss of both its men and its secured by two oceans advantage. I am deeply made sorry about the American Inians I learned about in text books while in school K-HS. And know little about the Civil War back east, nor the Old Mexican Territories up into oregon and Idaho. My grand mothers are both from the Idaho area and knew no spanish speaking people as far as I know.)...

[steve]

Jill,

I am not sure why you posted the above. Were you interested in contributing to the topic? If so, could you explain what your point was?

[jeremiah]

rich you said,

"If someone is open to the possibility of forcibly resisting someone in order to protect the innocence of another party, then they must be open to doing that in all circumstances and in every way."

this does not follow in the least. its not true that if someone is open to resist another with qualifications (innocence), then they must then be open "doing that in all circumstances and in every way." the qualification of innocence is what causes an otherwise non violent individual to act against their modus operandi. but to then connect this do the greater scale of war because you think its the only logical end of this concession, i think is getting too close to begging the question. its kinda like when a well meaning non calvinist says they don't understand why calvinists bother to pray or evangilize, for of course not doing those things is calvinism's logical end. my experience with calvinists showed me this is a very uncharitable assumption. (no i am definitely not a calvinist

you also said, "If Conditional Immortality or Eternal Torment is true, is it not more important to forcibly resist these people who are leading people to hell? One would respond, "Well of course not. We are not to fight our way into converting people". Well, that's our culture which influences our views."

it may be true that certain aspects of our current culture give this attitude a better chance to thrive, but its definitely not true of western culture entirely. even if it was though, when we say, "Well of course not. We are not to fight our way into converting people," we say that because Jesus told pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and if it was his followers would fight.

"If the Muslims did win that war in France, I think God could have preserved a remnant, or brought revival elsewhere" i agree completely.

grace and peace,
jeremiah

[RICHinCHRIST]

rich you said,

"If someone is open to the possibility of forcibly resisting someone in order to protect the innocence of another party, then they must be open to doing that in all circumstances and in every way."

this does not follow in the least. its not true that if someone is open to resist another with qualifications (innocence), then they must then be open "doing that in all circumstances and in every way." the qualification of innocence is what causes an otherwise non violent individual to act against their modes operandi. but to then connect this do the greater scale of war because you think its the only logical end of this concession, i think is getting too close to begging the question. its kinda like when a well meaning non calvinist says they don't understand why calvinists bother to pray or evangilize, for of course not doing those things is calvinism's logical end. my experience with calvinists showed me this is a very uncharitable assumption. (no i am definitely not a calvinist

I understand your point. In regards to Calvinist's evangelizing or praying... the best reason they give is that they are commanded to do those things. But according to their theology, if it's true, it logically follows that if they didn't evangelize or pray it wouldn't have changed anything anyway. So whether or not they were commanded it is a moot point. The fact remains that all that they prayed or didn't pray was ordained by God, so whatever sense of personal responsibility they claim to have is illusionary.

We're also commanded to love our neighbor as ourself. Those who believe it's God's will for us to forcibly resist dangerous people say that they are being obedient in loving the innocent party's life by protecting them. All I was saying was this: "If it's our responsibility to protect people from danger in an earthly sense, then surely we have to try and protect people in a spiritual sense too". Take Nazi Germany as an example. Some Christians said that due to Hitler's crazed genocide, the most loving thing for Christians to have done would have been to assassinate the man (Bonhoeffer was of this persuasion). What I'm saying is that if Hitler's genocide was bad, then Islam's spiritual genocide is much worse (and much more enduring, especially if ET is true). We tend to only look at this from an earthly perspective. If someone jeopardizes an innocent person's earthly life, we feel like we have to intervene and kill the perpetrator. But what about those who perpetrate much worse crimes which will merit the eternal judgment of God? It seems to me that these crimes are much more serious. If I'm not commanded by God to intervene in those kinds of circumstances, why should I feel the need to intervene in any earthly circumstance? In other words, if I'm not required to assassinate false prophets, why should I assassinate evil dictators (or the citizens in their country)?

Nazi Germany is often brought up in these discussions. But what about all of the third world countries that currently have evil dictators? North Sudan, or North Korea, or the like. If we really feel morally obligated to protect innocent people, then should we not forcibly resist these places also? The logical end of being open to forcible resistance is that we must try and protect everyone from all the bad influences they may come into contact with. The total pacifist can disagree and leave it up to the sovereignty of God.

I believe that vengeance is God's and that He will repay. I believe that I should love, bless, and do good to my enemies (not kill them). I believe that I should live peaceably with all people, and be a peacemaker. That's what the Scriptures command me. I don't understand how one can say that they should intervene forcibly in the name of love, yet overlook most of the evil perpetrators in the world. If it is the moral thing to do, however, then shouldn't we all be fighting for the protection of people? It seems like we wouldn't have the time or the ability to protect everyone we should because there would be so many to try and defend. It seems to me to be much more biblical to just live a quiet life of peace, and let God sort out all the rest. But if it's our job to protect people in the name of love, then there's a lot more to that responsibility than just beating up the guy trying to kidnap your neighbor. There are a lot of people in need of protection that we often feel completely content in letting them fend for themselves. This is the logical error I can identify. At least the Crusaders were consistent, even though they were wrong.

[look2jesus]

Hello Rich,

I don't think I agree with your argument, and here's why. I see a difference between using physical force against an agressive agent with murderous intent towards an innocent party, and using physical force to interfere with the spread of false religion. I agree that both are "dangerous" but they don't, necessarily, fall into the same category. I think using physical means to protect the innocent--thus, loving them--can be reasonably upheld upon biblical principles, whereas using physical means to attack false religion, in my opinion, is forbidden in the New Testament. I think one place where this is quite clear is in 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul says,

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...an idolater...not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges."

What is idolatry but false religion? And Paul says he has no business pronouncing judgment upon those who are outside the church--something hard to avoid if we decide to kill them because of their religious convictions.

There is a difference between things that are physically dangerous and things that are spiritually dangerous. In the case of immediate peril to one's life, loving them could certainly justify use of force, depending on one's own conscience. At least I don't see a clear biblical case that would forbid it. In the case of false religion, however, is it really certain that people will be converted to the false religion propagated by it's adherents? And, even if it is, who is primarily responsible for this? A good argument could be made, I think, that the resulting spiritual ruin was self-induced, even though they might have been influenced by others.

For these reasons, I don't believe it is inconsistent to act in the one case and not act in the other, as you are arguing.

l2j

[jeremiah]

rich, you said

"I believe that vengeance is God's and that He will repay. I believe that I should love, bless, and do good to my enemies (not kill them). I believe that I should live peaceably with all people, and be a peacemaker. That's what the Scriptures command me. I don't understand how one can say that they should intervene forcibly in the name of love, yet overlook most of the evil perpetrators in the world."

up until the last sentence i am in agreement with you. you seem to be conflating the micro and macro so to speak. i don't think it is as black and white as you think. on a national scale the question gets quite complex and convoluted. neither would i be willing to kill another human being. but that does not mean i would ever stand and do nothing if my brother decided to start beating my mother in the head.

to say the total pacifist can just leave it up to the sovereignty of God does absolutely nothing to remedy an obvious immediate injustice i may find myself in with the opportunity to amend. ghandi is often brought up in these discussions as well. i think the sikhs have a much more enlightened view of this subject. i believe hyper pacifisim ( thats a joke) fails to recognize the nuances in this subject. specifically regarding the immediate, and thus mistakenly assume the moral high ground.

again for the most part i'm in agreement with you, please don't take any of this to be said in an aggressive manner.

grace and peace
jeremiah

[RICHinCHRIST]

i don't think it is as black and white as you think.

I tend to be a black and white kinda guy!

Good comments, guys. I still think the logic makes some sense in premise, even though it wouldn't be practical biblically speaking.

Biblically speaking, I agree that we shouldn't go to war against false religions. However, if I really believe in CI or ET, I must say that despite the immorality of killing a false prophet or going to war against a nation which is 100% Muslim (just for the sake of their beliefs), it's possible that many lives could be saved from the influence of false doctrines (and later from hell). It's a greater good. The end justifies the means.

Here are some Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes from Wikipedia (when he thought of assassinating Hitler and going to war against the Nazis):

In the face of Nazi atrocities, the full scale of which Bonhoeffer learned through the Abwehr, he concluded that "the ultimate question for a responsible man to ask is not how he is to extricate himself heroically from the affair, but how the coming generation shall continue to live."[23] He did not justify his action but accepted that he was taking guilt upon himself as he wrote "when a man takes guilt upon himself in responsibility, he imputes his guilt to himself and no one else. He answers for it...Before other men he is justified by dire necessity; before himself he is acquitted by his conscience, but before God he hopes only for grace."[24] (In this connection, it is worthwhile to recall his 1932 sermon, in which he said: “the blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith. On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant who is cast into outer darkness.”[25])

If this man felt so passionate to save people's earthly lives despite the immorality of intervention, how much more should we intervene, who know that millions are being lost forever?

I agree that we don't have the biblical liberty to judge those outside the Church. But if CI or ET are true, would not the end justify the means?

I suppose I might be merging this question in with the three views of hell too much. I have difficulty seeing it apart from it.

Perhaps this is due to my own critical examination of the idea of eternal hell. I find that I have a real serious trouble reconciling the fact that God can allow so many people to be deceived and to fall into the fire without making very much of an effort to reveal Himself to them (if He doesn't intend to do it in the next life).

The very idea of forcibly resisting a perpetrator seems very loving. I think the Good Samaritan most likely would have rescued the man who fell among thieves if he got there in time. The question I have is why God seemingly doesn't intervene in circumstances which He has the power to change. It seems that if any of us had the power to do what God could, we would intervene and protect people from their perpetrators. But God, in His wisdom, chooses not to intervene in both physical circumstances as well as spiritual ones. Jesus said, "Let the blind lead the blind, cause they'll both fall in the ditch". Well, so much for trying to persuade them otherwise I suppose! God doesn't intend to intervene in all circumstances. Why should we?

Perhaps that is too naive of a question. God may allow certain things because He has a greater wisdom and can create a greater good if He chooses. Since we as creatures do not have that same capability, we must choose to act according to our conscience in different situations since we can only understand so much.