Can you think of any time when Jesus Himself resisted evil or instructed His disciples to? Be careful now I wouldn't ask you if I did not know.
-
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!
Is the Sermon on the Mount for Today?
- Thread starter 1689Dave
- Start date
- Status
Can you think of any time when Jesus Himself resisted evil or instructed His disciples to? Be careful now I wouldn't ask you if I did not know.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Jesus fulfilled prophecy driving the money changers from the temple. But this is not an approval of violence since he denies it for his followers. The two swords were circumstantial evidence in framing him as a transgressor. Especially after Peter cur Malchus' ear off.
That's it. You cannot think of anything else?
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
What am I missing?
Didn't Jesus resist the Pharisees in Matthew 23? He told the disciples to take swords along with them in Luke 22. Paul defended himself as well by warning of consequences if he were harmed.
The problem with your personal interpretation is you think you can apply it to everything in every situation. It's just not true. Your view is extreme and beyond the scope and context of that passage.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
You are taking that to mean non-violence, which is not what it means. It is referring to personal retaliation, not self-defense against criminal activity. When Jesus says that we are to love our enemies, he is not telling us to love the enemy at the expense of our family's safety and well-being.
The context of the passage has nothing to do with the military and it has nothing to do with protecting our families. It is about not retaliating against offenses to personal honor, not retaliating with law suits for minor personal offenses, not to retaliate when we are persecuted. It is about not taking out revenge on others, but to extend the love of Christ.
It is NOT intended to mean that if our family is in danger from an assailant that we are to simply hand them over to said assailant. That is not loving your enemy, nor is it loving one's family. It is a dereliction of Christian, manly duty before God and you will face judgement before God for mistreating your family in that way. I would not want to be in your shoes if you give your family over to an assailant.
You have a very sloppy, extremist, irresponsible and sinful approach to this matter. It is, at its heart, very unchristian and is not in keeping with Scripture.
Pacifism is a secular, worldly concept. You are trying to pencil a sinful, worldly concept into the Bible and so far, no authentic Christian is buying into it.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Paul defended himself verbally but never physically with those trying to harm him. Jesus never tried to kill anyone in scripture.
But they did resist.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
We need scriptural examples for your claims. Until then you are adding to scripture.
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
You are confusing how we are supposed to respond to persecution vs. how we respond to criminal activity
GoodTidings
Well-Known Member
I am working off of the Scripture YOU are providing.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Of course they did. I resist sin every day. But there is no example of Christians defending themselves using physical violence in the NT.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Let's see it .
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
No difference. Paul was beaten of robbers but he taught vengeance belongs to the Lord.
Scripture?
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers, in hard work and toil, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, many times without food, in cold and without enough clothing.” 2 Corinthians 11:26–27 (NET)
There is a huge difference between being non-violent ,resisting evil, and restraining evil doers.
I am basically a non-violent person, yet have the understanding of restraining and the techniques/training and authority to restrain children when and if necessary.
I can defend against evil and not be violent either in intent or in physical.
One who engages in violence has the intent to harm, not to restrain, or to resist, but to return some measure of just retribution.
Such retribution is for God to assign, not for me.
I am basically a non-violent person, yet have the understanding of restraining and the techniques/training and authority to restrain children when and if necessary.
I can defend against evil and not be violent either in intent or in physical.
One who engages in violence has the intent to harm, not to restrain, or to resist, but to return some measure of just retribution.
Such retribution is for God to assign, not for me.
Last edited:
Now you are narrowing the goal post. You don't even remember your own words in this thread
Perhaps I missed the moving of goal posts. Would you put the post numbers that you are referring too?
Rockson
Active Member
Yes and No. I just checked out Scofield on this and while he did say something similar I think you've missed the idea of what he was truly stating. The morality issue of the Sermon on the Mount must still be seen in New Covenant believers but we do have God's grace now to enable the spiritual carrying them out. Jesus was talking still about the law during that period of time.
- Status