-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christians and War.
- Thread starter shodan
- Start date
It matters little what church history says about Christians and participation in War, but it matters a great deal what God's word says on the subject.
Baptists are not to follow Spurgeon, or Calvin, or whoever, they are to follow Christ.
Are we, acting on our own supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Nope, we are to turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies.
Are we, acting under the authority of our local church supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Nope, but we are stand firm for the gospel, and be in-tolerate of false teachings.
Are we, acting under the authority of government supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Yes. Do a study on the last six people mentioned in Hebrews 11. The government carries the sword and protects against evil-doers.
The fly in the buttermilk is when say an "ex marine" riding a train sees someone preparing to do harm to women and children. Whether in a train to Paris or a subway in New York. What does the bible say?
John 15:13.
Baptists are not to follow Spurgeon, or Calvin, or whoever, they are to follow Christ.
Are we, acting on our own supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Nope, we are to turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies.
Are we, acting under the authority of our local church supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Nope, but we are stand firm for the gospel, and be in-tolerate of false teachings.
Are we, acting under the authority of government supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Yes. Do a study on the last six people mentioned in Hebrews 11. The government carries the sword and protects against evil-doers.
The fly in the buttermilk is when say an "ex marine" riding a train sees someone preparing to do harm to women and children. Whether in a train to Paris or a subway in New York. What does the bible say?
John 15:13.
Last edited:
The subject of this post is Christians and war. The fellow ex-marine riding on the train is another subject. Start your own thread.
"authority of government supposed to engage in harmful activity toward others? Yes. ...The government carries the sword and protects against evil-doers " Yes as in Romans where Scripture instructs Christians, Romans, the Sword, and the Bane of Memory Verse Theology
The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armor of light” (Rom. 13:12).
Christians are called to be the light of the world, not the sword of the LORD.
Summation of Aquinas on Just War from Wikipedia.
“ Firstly, the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign. Secondly, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil.[32][33] Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.”
If you were shipwrecked on an island and you were the only man survivor among women a children, you are the government. All responsibility is on you by circumstance and placed on you by the God of all circumstance.
Men are natural government.
Say a mad man was already on the island and was harming or killing the survivors, your job is to stop that. You don’t have facilities to capture and hold the mad man, and he being so dangerous, you most likely may have to kill him.
You are the only government and the only one capable of enforcing people’s rights and providing safety.
People can read the The Batavia Tragedy in the 1600s which took place off the coast of Western Australia for a case study of morality and ethics in dire circumstances. It’s an incredible true story.
“ Firstly, the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign. Secondly, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil.[32][33] Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.”
If you were shipwrecked on an island and you were the only man survivor among women a children, you are the government. All responsibility is on you by circumstance and placed on you by the God of all circumstance.
Men are natural government.
Say a mad man was already on the island and was harming or killing the survivors, your job is to stop that. You don’t have facilities to capture and hold the mad man, and he being so dangerous, you most likely may have to kill him.
You are the only government and the only one capable of enforcing people’s rights and providing safety.
People can read the The Batavia Tragedy in the 1600s which took place off the coast of Western Australia for a case study of morality and ethics in dire circumstances. It’s an incredible true story.
I did so, and agree, a fascinating piece of history.
Hi Shodan,
1) When someone risks his or her life to protect another, that is not "avenge yourselves" behavior.
2) Acting against evil doers, absent government auspices is on topic.
3) Acting against evil doers with government auspices is biblical behavior.
Men are government in the absence of institutional formal government.
Even today, all formal governments are very wary and fearful of movements involving men in their societies.
Large and even small numbers of men assembling in common cause are investigated, infiltrated and scrutinised very closely, even when no crime has been committed by them.
This is because men are the enforcement power in every society and always have been.
Hi Cathode,
Not sure if your post is paternalistic. But leaving that aside:
Yes, people operate to carry out government functions, such as protection from evil doers.
And yes, evil doers can get their hands of the levers of power of government and turn government power against the governed.
The issue is that Christians, operating within the auspices of government authority, can use force, even lethal force, to protect society.
And the corollary is the potential that "even small numbers of people assembling in common cause" might exercise protective force when an immediate threat arises in the absence of effective government authorized force.
Consider Flight 93, and those who laid down their lives attempting to protect those in the plane and those possibly targeted on the ground. I believe their action was in accordance with Christ's commands.
It’s very interesting stuff isn’t it.
I remember when I was 11 nearly 12, I was at a place with a swimming pool. There were other kids there and only women were there. A large Alsatian ran into the place growling and barking at us.
Next moment I realise a grown woman had gotten behind me holding me by the shoulders pushing me out in front of her as a shield.
Other women were behind her terrified, I was the sacrificial offering, I was expected to be responsible and disposable.
Even in the absence of men, boys are responsible. In native cultures, boys have been sent out to defend and face deadly threats since the dawn of time.
It’s innate in us to be tough, not cry, face fear, face hardship and ordeals without complaint from a young age and it is trained into us. Why? Because society needs us to be responsible and disposable. Bears and Sabre tooth tigers never cared about our feelings.
Those that face ultimate responsibility ie Death, are the real government.
When the US soldiers left Afghanistan, it’s liberal democracy and women’s rights and education and empowerment vaporised.
Western fighting men and their values departed and Taliban fighting men and their values took over.
Women can never have true equality, they can only have what men grant them.
Its unfortunate that the men on the plane didn’t prevent the takeover of the plane in the first place.
Their actions would have saved many other lives however.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The church has struggled with this question since the first century when soldiers became Christians. To kill as a soldier is contrary to our Lord’s commands. Our obedience is to Him, not a country
God does not need His chosen to kill anyone. We are to be light. We are not the sword of God (as someone else mentioned)
Concerning the revolutionary war, as mentioned in the OP, our founding fathers were clearly violating scripture when they rebelled.
Peace to you
God does not need His chosen to kill anyone. We are to be light. We are not the sword of God (as someone else mentioned)
Concerning the revolutionary war, as mentioned in the OP, our founding fathers were clearly violating scripture when they rebelled.
Peace to you
Spurgeon wrote, "To see a soldier become a Christian is a great thing. To see a Christian become a soldier is another matter."
Way back in 1939, at the start of WW2, Dr. Lloyd-Jones gave four sermons on the subject of war at a Christian conference in Scotland. They later became his first published book under the title, 'Why does God allow war?' I strongly recommend the book to anyone researching this topic.
When I was saved in 1990, there were some older guys at the church who had declined to fight in WW2. Instead they had become stretcher-bearers or medics. I could easily become a pacifist, I think, until I consider Hitler.
Some of you may know that the highest British award for bravery in war is the Victoria Cross. The only man to win the VC twice in WW1 never fired a shot in anger - he joined the Royal Army Medical Corps and won the medal both times for repeatedly going out under enemy fire to rescue wounded soldiers. The second time lost him his life.
www.britishlegion.org.uk
Way back in 1939, at the start of WW2, Dr. Lloyd-Jones gave four sermons on the subject of war at a Christian conference in Scotland. They later became his first published book under the title, 'Why does God allow war?' I strongly recommend the book to anyone researching this topic.
When I was saved in 1990, there were some older guys at the church who had declined to fight in WW2. Instead they had become stretcher-bearers or medics. I could easily become a pacifist, I think, until I consider Hitler.
Some of you may know that the highest British award for bravery in war is the Victoria Cross. The only man to win the VC twice in WW1 never fired a shot in anger - he joined the Royal Army Medical Corps and won the medal both times for repeatedly going out under enemy fire to rescue wounded soldiers. The second time lost him his life.
Noel Chavasse | War Hero | Royal British Legion
Captain Noel Chavasse is one of only three people to be awarded the Victoria Cross twice – and the only VC and Bar of the First World War.
www.britishlegion.org.uk
I think God’s providence and victory vindicated their cause somewhat.
Governments can loose their legitimacy if they work against the purpose of them.
These claims have no support in scripture. Do a study of the last six people names in Hebrews 11.
The whole bible and peace to you.
When ot comes to war the issue is not "thou shalt not kill" because this never applied to war. The issue, IMHO, is participation in the powers we were warned against. Churches do not send people to war. Secular governments do in their own interests. Christians are also contrasted wirh violent men (David was a violent man).
But Christians today do come off as violent. Not only is there the issue of war, but there is the death penalty and how Christians interact with immoral non-Christians.
Those that hold the false doctrine of pacifism deny that government, thus those acting under the color of government authority, can engage in war.
I have mentioned the last six names found in Hebrews 11 several times. These are all referred to as "saints" thus those set apart for God's own possession.
1) The general, non-specific reference to passages of scripture leave to the reader what to infer that might be consistent with Christians being barred from the use of lethal force. That dog will not hunt.
2) The third chapter of 1 Corinthians was cited. But the chapter does not address the issue.
3) The phrase "shed much blood" was used to suggest Christians cannot shed blood. But what if we interpret the phrase to mean, "shed much innocent blood?" Then the suggested support evaporates.
I have mentioned the last six names found in Hebrews 11 several times. These are all referred to as "saints" thus those set apart for God's own possession.
1) The general, non-specific reference to passages of scripture leave to the reader what to infer that might be consistent with Christians being barred from the use of lethal force. That dog will not hunt.
2) The third chapter of 1 Corinthians was cited. But the chapter does not address the issue.
3) The phrase "shed much blood" was used to suggest Christians cannot shed blood. But what if we interpret the phrase to mean, "shed much innocent blood?" Then the suggested support evaporates.
The great Puritan writer John Owen, taught that there were multiple (17 to be exact) differences between the old covenant and the new, and in each the new covenant is better (c.f. Hebrews 8:6)..
One of these is that in the old covenant, the kingdom of God had the appearance of a kingdom of the world, having borders, armies and secular rulers. In the new covenant, God's kingdom is spread all through the world, and the weapons of its warfare are not carnal (2 Corinthians 10:3-4)