The Sin of Pacifism

[Jason0047]

Dear Ken:

Ecclesiastes is not a New Covenant teaching for Christian believers. It was originally written for the Old Covenant saint who lived under a different set of rules. Today, that passage is applied differently to the believer. The weapons of our warefare are not carnal. You might think that they are carnal, but Paul says otherwise.

 

[kennethcadwell]

I think it is interesting that people come up with such an interpretation when Jesus said All who take the sword will perish by the sword. In the NIV it even says all who even draw the sword will perish by the sword.

Christ didn't leave any room for exceptions. Yet we have an entire nation trying to make excuses and circumvent His words.

And how do they do it? By pulling from the Old Testament. It's hardly better than the Judaizers telling folks they need to circumcise themselves and keep the law when Christ said STOP.

It's almost the same interpretation method that homosexual and women preacher advocates use. And that method is "Let's ignore those verses" or "That obviously doesn't mean what it clearly says." It's intellectual dishonesty.

This is saying those who live by violence will die in violence.
If you take and use violence once or twice in your life to defend another person, then you are not living by violence.

A person who lives by violence ( by the sword as scripture says ) that violence affects all parts of their life. Home, work, and so forth because they live a life of hatred.
Sometimes physical force is the only way to go to protect another, now this does not mean to go in with the aspect to kill that person. If it goes that far, it goes that far.
Ecclesiastes like I mentioned even says there is a time to kill.

It should not be the first, or only motive though.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Dear Ken:

Ecclesiastes is not a New Covenant teaching for Christian believers. It was originally written for the Old Covenant saint who lived under a different set of rules. Today, that passage is applied differently to the believer. The weapons of our warefare are not carnal. You might think that they are carnal, but Paul says otherwise.

It goes with God's moral values that we are to follow.
We are to protect the slaughter of innocent people by any means possible to us.
Like I said killing should never be the first response, or motive, but sometimes its unavoidable.

 

[Jason0047]

It goes with God's moral values that we are to follow.
We are to protect the slaughter of innocent people by any means possible to us.
Like I said killing should never be the first response, or motive, but sometimes its unavoidable.

What are your thoughts on this article?

The Old Covenant and the Law of Moses | Grace Communion International

You can reply privately or in another thread. I am curious as to what you think of the many verses that say we are under the New Testament and not the Old Testament. In other words, I am curious as to what you think of this basic teaching in Scripture.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

This is saying those who live by violence will die in violence.
If you take and use violence once or twice in your life to defend another person, then you are not living by violence.

A person who lives by violence ( by the sword as scripture says ) that violence affects all parts of their life. Home, work, and so forth because they live a life of hatred.
Sometimes physical force is the only way to go to protect another, now this does not mean to go in with the aspect to kill that person. If it goes that far, it goes that far.
Ecclesiastes like I mentioned even says there is a time to kill.

It should not be the first, or only motive though.

Ah. So in this case, you are saying it is wrong to be a policeman or a military member but not someone who occasionally draws the sword...which would be Peter.....which was the exact instance that Christ rebuked Peter for.....which was drawing the sword....occasionally.....in defense of an innocent...

 

[Ecclesiastik]

Actually, there is only one passsage that I found that appears (at first glance) to be in strong favor against pacificism. I say this because I want to be open and honest with everyone about Scripture with people here and let them know I am not out to just look at one side of the Bible.

That passage is Matthew 8:5-13.

Jesus appears to favor of the Centurion's example in relation to his great faith that Jesus will be able to heal the one he asks to be healed.

Okay, you have to understand that this Centurion man is a Gentile. At this time: Gentiles were generally categorized as unbelievers and Jesus was preaching to the house of Israel first before spreading that gospel message out to the Gentiles. For do you remember the woman who was a Gentile and called to Jesus and she related about how even the dogs eat the crumbs from the table? This is important to understand because Jesus' gospel message and teachings were going out to the house of Israel first. For in the Centurion's world, God was using him as a minister of justice. For Romans 13 says that all nations that are set into power by God (Which are all unbelieving nations: Which pictures Gentiles) are God's ministers of executing justice. This can be seen with the King of Assyria in Isaiah 10:5-12 NLT (For God uses the King of Assyria (who is an unbelieving king of an unbelieving nation) to punish Israel for their sins). In other words, at the time Jesus talked to the Centurion: the teachings that Jesus gave about loving your enemies in Matthew chapter 5 was to the house of Israel and it was not for the Gentiles yet. For the time of including the Gentiles did not happen yet until Jesus gave the great commission after His resurrection. For Jesus said, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also,..." (John 10:16). Jesus also said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,..." (Matthew 28:19).

My point being is that, first, Jesus is not out to teach this Gentile yet (His ways until after His resurrection); Second, Jesus is not against authority within armies because Jesus is one with the Father, (i.e. second person of the Godhead or the Trinity) who executes justice thru His unbelieving ministers of justice or unbelieving nations; For there it is very likely that God used this Centurion's army (that were unbelievers / Gentiles) in the past for his purposes. So Jesus' approval of his authority in relation to his faith shows that God was still continuing to work His authority in unbelieving (Gentile) nations to execute justice for His purposes and plan.

Side Note: Now, do not misunderstand me, God did save Gentiles in the Old Testament. The story of Jonah and others tells us this. But Jesus' gospel was to the Jew first, and then to the Greek.

I'll do you one even better. The greatest evidence I saw in favor of war and non-pacifism is: John the Baptist not rebuking the soldiers and not telling them to leave the army when they asked what should they do and, as you have stated, Jesus not doing the same, nor Peter doing the same when the Italian/Gentile soldier came to him.

Yet, I thought of it in proper context. If a fellow soldier came to me and asked me what he should do to be saved, I wouldn't bring up leaving the military as a first thing. In fact, I would likely leave that decision to him once he becomes saved and starts casting off weights in his life. The problem of killing/murder in the military with morality is so obvious that I know of at least two people who work on ammunition who have seared consciences...and they aren't even followers of Christ. And I don't work with ammunition. I've just run into them or heard their stories. So I'll leave the Holy Spirit to convict in that area since literally being in the military is not a sin just as literally being in the rap industry is not a sin. It can just be quite counter-productive.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Ah. So in this case, you are saying it is wrong to be a policeman or a military member but not someone who occasionally draws the sword...which would be Peter.....which was the exact instance that Christ rebuked Peter for.....which was drawing the sword....occasionally.....in defense of an innocent...

Wrong for a policeman or military member are suppose to enforce peace, not violence.
Their first objective is, or should be not to kill first.
He did not rebuke Peter for drawing the sword, read all context. He rebuked Peter for drawing it in anger, and using unnecessary violence at that time for Jesus had to be taken.

Nobody, no matter what profession they might be in should have a kill first or violent mentality.
They should always try peaceful solutions first, and then if of no affect then only use physical actions in defense only.

A police officer and a military person can still misuse force that they have been entrusted to have.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

Wrong for a policeman or military member are suppose to enforce peace, not violence.
Their first objective is, or should be not to kill first.
He did not rebuke Peter for drawing the sword, read all context. He rebuked Peter for drawing it in anger, and using unnecessary violence at that time for Jesus had to be taken.

Nobody, no matter what profession they might be in should have a kill first or violent mentality.
They should always try peaceful solutions first, and then if of no affect then only use physical actions in defense only.

A police officer and a military person can still misuse force that they have been entrusted to have.

What Jesus rebuked Peter for is evident. He did this because it was His time to go. However what Jesus Christ issued as a doctrinal statement after rebuking Peter is also evident. Do not take the sword....He tells Peter. Why? Because ALL who take the sword will perish with the sword. There are no exceptions. Not just when you take the sword out of anger, otherwise Christ would have said that but He didn't. That qualifies as adding to and taking away from the word of God, which is a grievous thing. Peter was rebuked and Christ felt the need to issue this doctrinal statement that ALL who take the sword will perish with the sword.

Please take a minute and think about this. Why would the word of God issue such a generic statement as ALL who take the sword will perish with the sword. What does it mean to take the sword? It doesn't necessarily mean to live by it. And if it did, that would still disqualify policemen and military members from the kingdom of God. If it means just being randomly violent, then Christ's words are really confusing because if I read this verse on a desert island away from the American culture, I never would have gathered that he simply meant don't do random, evil violence. Especially since that doesn't appear to be what Peter was doing.

 

[Jason0047]

Wrong for a policeman or military member are suppose to enforce peace, not violence.
Their first objective is, or should be not to kill first.
He did not rebuke Peter for drawing the sword, read all context. He rebuked Peter for drawing it in anger, and using unnecessary violence at that time for Jesus had to be taken.

Nobody, no matter what profession they might be in should have a kill first or violent mentality.
They should always try peaceful solutions first, and then if of no affect then only use physical actions in defense only.

A police officer and a military person can still misuse force that they have been entrusted to have.

A person can live by eating pizza. Whether that person eats pizza once, or for one week, or a year, they live by eating that pizza. If you live by the sword, that means you trust in it to stay alive. You are living by the sword. But he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. This is not a blessing given to someone. Living and dying by the sword is not a good thing. If it was, then why was Jesus so upset with Him?

 

[Jason0047]

I'll do you one even better. The greatest evidence I saw in favor of war and non-pacifism is: John the Baptist not rebuking the soldiers and not telling them to leave the army when they asked what should they do and, as you have stated, Jesus not doing the same, nor Peter doing the same when the Italian/Gentile soldier came to him.

Yet, I thought of it in proper context. If a fellow soldier came to me and asked me what he should do to be saved, I wouldn't bring up leaving the military as a first thing. In fact, I would likely leave that decision to him once he becomes saved and starts casting off weights in his life. The problem of killing/murder in the military with morality is so obvious that I know of at least two people who work on ammunition who have seared consciences...and they aren't even followers of Christ. And I don't work with ammunition. I've just run into them or heard their stories. So I'll leave the Holy Spirit to convict in that area since literally being in the military is not a sin just as literally being in the rap industry is not a sin. It can just be quite counter-productive.

Thank you for this reply brother.

 

[elf3]

Ken says some pretty good stuff there in his last couple posts. I hope you both read carefully.

Now you is both funny

 

[Jason0047]

A person can live by eating pizza. Whether that person eats pizza once, or for one week, or a year, they live by eating that pizza. If you live by the sword, that means you trust in it to stay alive. You are living by the sword. But he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. This is not a blessing given to someone. Living and dying by the sword is not a good thing. If it was, then why was Jesus so upset with Him?

This is also equally potentially true if you live by the spiritual sword, too. For all who live Godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. This persecution many times leads to the believer being a martyr for their faith.

But how can you be a martyr if you kill them before they kill you?

 

[jdbear]

That is not the impression I get from others here, though (Who defend your position). Many appear to get very emotional and offer little to no Scripture and others just mock. How is that of the Spirit of God? Would not God's love be patient and kind? You know, showing people the Scriptures in loving patience instead of jabbing them with personal questions so as to get them to react emotionally instead of getting them to react according to what the Word says.

It doesn't help when you reject scripture which plainly shows the flaws in your thinking and fortunately a very good example of the lengths you will go to in misapplying scripture can be found below.

Originally posted by Jason0047,
Carnal means worldly (outwardly) (physical). Paul said the weapons of our warefare are not carnal.

With respect to the gospel that's true, but the time to preach Jesus isn't when someone is attacking your family.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...A time to kill, and a time to heal...A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecc.3:1,3,8

You have little common sense in applying God's word in this area

Qriginally posted by Jason0047,
lso, I didn't say it is wrong to defend people. I have already said that a ton of times. What is wrong is using "lethal force" or hurtful violence against a person to stop another in the New Testament.

The flaw in your thinking is not being able to distinguish between how you see violence and how God sees it. There is no teaching in the NT forbidding lethal force when needed in defense of others for purposes other than the gospel.

Originally posted by Jason 0047,
Then Jesus should have told the woman at the well who used to have five husbands and was sleeping with a guy (Who was not her husband) to stop her sexual immorality. Was Jesus' silence an approval of that? No. Most certaiinly not.

Here are other flaws in your thinking:

1) We don't know if Jesus said more to this woman than what is recorded.
2) Silence is your argument, but John the Baptist addressed the soldiers vocation. He wasn't silent about it.

You will say anything to justify yourself.

Originally posted by Jason0047,
Also, as I said before, this man was a Gentile and not an Israelite. The gospel was going out to the Jew first. It wasn't until after the resurrection that the gospel was to be preached to all nations (i.e. the Gentiles).

So you're idea is that he could be an unsaved soldier until after the resurrection, but then he needed to be converted and quit the army. This is where patience turns to mocking...and deservedly so.

Originally posted by Jason0047,
John was the forerunner. He was "preparing the way of the Lord," urging the Jews to follow the old law so that they would be ready for the new one. He also said "he who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none" (Luke 3:11), but Jesus said "if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also" (Matthew 5:40). Many also wrongfully assume Paul endorse state violence, but let's examine these passages. Paul writes:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister 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 minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but for conscience's sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (Romans 13:1-7)

​

And Peter writes:

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

There is no hint here that Christians should, or even may, engage in violence on behalf of the state; only that they should submit to state punishment. Moreover, if we are not to read these passages as being radically inconsistent with basic morality and with the behavior of all the Christian martyrs, we have to understand "the authorities that exist are appointed by God" as meaning that they are part of a larger divine plan that we do not understand, not that they are morally authoritative by virtue of their power. Was Adolf Hitler "God's minister?" Or the pagan emperors who killed St. Paul and St. Peter. If "rulers are not a terror to good works," that is because the man engaged in good works need not fear death since he expects to be rewarded; it is certainly not because rulers don't kill people for good works, as they certainly do very often, and killed Paul in particular. If the Roman governors who killed Peter and Paul brought the "praise of those who do good," it was not their intention to do so, but rather a side-effect of Peter's and Paul's courage in doing the right thing in the face of the threat of death at the hands of the Roman state.

Source:
The Free Thinker: In Defense of Christian Pacifism
(Not all views or beliefs expressed by this author reflect my own; I merely agree with this portion of what was written within his article).
​

Jason, where's the indication here that Christians may not protect themselves on behalf of the state?

 

[Jason0047]

Read the story of Acts chapter 7. Did Stephen desire to hurt the men back who were stoning him? Or was he not demonstrating that we are to be persecuted and or martyrs for our faith?

 

[jdbear]

Defending your wife against a pervert doesn't count as bing "persecuted for the faith." Are you awake now?

 

[jdbear]

If you look in on your child at night and discover a pervert sodomizing her, the pacifist approach is evil, not holy.

 

[jdbear]

Moreover Job...said,
And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth. 29:17

This was a Godly man.

 

[jdbear]

According to God, Job was better than anyone on earth.

 

[jdbear]

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. Pr.26:3

Proverbs...written by Solomon. Pretty wise man. You'd be a fool to break into my house and think you were going to hurt my family.

 

[dcontroversal]

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. Pr.26:3

Proverbs...written by Solomon. Pretty wise man. You'd be a fool to break into my house and think you were going to hurt my family.

You know I agree with ya, unfortunately, a fool will stand on what he hammers out on his own anvil and those who will be ignorantly blind will be exactly that...ignorant and blind! Again....they fail to separate the two...I.E. being persecuted for righteousness and or defending a poor defenseless child or woman being raped and or murdered while trivializing away godly, biblical principles set forth in the scriptures.......!