Should A Christian Be a Pacifist?

I posted approximately two dozen verses in post number nine as to why I believe it is not God's will. So since I don't believe we are to obey man over God, I would follow my Godly convictions, and not mans instructions. As Acts 5:29 instructs us to do.

I believe in judging a criminal for his actions in our society, I don't agree with the death penalty.

 

Steven,
And for that you have my undying respect. However Paul has told us that God has granted govt the sword for the punishment of the evil doer.
Romans 13:3&4
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

The issues of pacifism, and most of the Scriptures posted earlier deal with the church not trying to further the gospel by force. There is no biblical ground for a pacifist approach to a nation's foreign policy, or for a pacifist approach to personal defense.

It is ironic that a pacifist would come on here and debate pacifisim. Why wouldn't you just decline to participate since you are a pacifist?

 

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Let it be known that as old a veteran as am I would still do my duty and be a minister of God to execute wrath upon those who do evil, those who want to shed our blood and do other unspeakable things to us. Let all the women and children of our nation that not only I, but millions of other men would lay down our lives to protect you.

Genesis 9

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.​

HankD

 

Yes, at Least Until.....

I will remain a pacifist until the enemy tries to harm my family and loved ones, than those guns in my weapons safe will be used until I run our of ammo, or they shoot me dead. In some some ways that may make me sound un-Christian, but, if God called and sent His Nation to fight their enemies, it seems to reason I'd be within my rights.

IMHO that is.

Pastor Paul

 

How about tough love? What if out of my love for him I beat the crap out of him. Better me than someone who doesn't love him... :laugh:


Seriously, this topic seems different depending if you use the OT or NT for your answers. There are also the battles to come in Revelations. Tough one.

 

As my Brother would say "God blessed me with this gun etc..."

 

Why did Jesus allow two swords, why didn't he just say none?
How did you get carrying a sword made them transgressors?
Matt 27:38 shows us the interpretation " Then there were two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left"

 

Where in the world did you get that?

 

OK, bear with me and please keep and open mind.
I will explain. This verse has been a mystery for me for many years. Any explanation I have read, did not feel right or sound correct to me until I heard this one, and while I would not be dogmatic about it, it is the explanation i am most comfortable with. It makes the most sense to me, and is what I believe the scripture is saying.


Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.



I admit that on the surface, and at first glance it sounds like Jesus is telling them to arm. But if one looks at what happens just shortly after. Jesus admonishes him for using the sword.

Mat 26:51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.



It makes no sense to me that Jesus is telling the disciples to arm themselves, more so when one takes into account the many other verses that Jesus taught about loving our enemies. So now if we go back to Luke 22:36, but add in the rest of what He said, and maybe you will see my point. Luke 22:36-38

Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
"For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end."
So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."




First off, if He was instructing them to arm, why would he tell just two of them to do so? That makes no sense at all. Would not the other ten need to do the same?

So if that is not what He is saying, what is? I think it is clearer if looking at it in it's entirety. He tells them to sell a garment and buy a sword, why?, ""For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors."
When they then say we have two, He says "It is enough". See it wasn't about arming at all just part of the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12. Not a complete fulfillment which would come later, but a continuation. Two swords, just as there were two robbers, enough to fulfill prophesy, to be numbered with the transgressors. Would not the priest's believe that He was with transgressors when " one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."?

Why does Jesus quote Isaiah 53:12, in Luke 22, if it had no meaning or context to what was taking place? Why does He say Buy a sword, for what is written must still be fulfilled? There would be no reason for Jesus to bring that up, if He was just instructing them to arm. It would be out of left filed, and make little sense. And why does He make a point to say two was enough? Enough for what purpose? Again it make no sense unless it was referring to the prophesy?

I realize that most of you here will not agree with this, and I respect that. But in my humble opinion, it best explains these verse, and allows it to all fit together. To this point in my life this is the explanation, that I am the most at peace with (no pun intended). :laugh: I hope that at least those that read this do so with an open mind and heart to what the scriptures might be saying.

 

LOL, yeah, just let me get in one more good shot because I love you so much. :laugh:

 

Actually, both abortion and war involve killing the innocent. It's never reported in the news but the number of innocent Iraqis killed in the current war is far greater than the number of American solders or Iraqi combatants killed. This number is much smaller than the number of innocent babies aborted of course. This fact has necessarily been true in every war but I would guess it's truer today than it was when armies lined up and charged at each other.

 

Jesus was using a parable as you well know--a parable about a king being prepared to go to war. But the parable had no application about bearing arms in the context of what he was teaching at that moment. Your application goes something like this: In the parable of the pearl of great price, why would Jesus use a pearl unless he acually wanted us to go out and search for the actual thing. It is a parable. Just as he does not expect us to be pearl hunters, he does not expect us to go to war according to that parable. Jesus used earthly stories to teach heavenly truths.

There is no command to go to war. Paul was not discussing going to war, in fact he was discussing the very opposite. It was the Roman citizens that made up the Roman Army. They were Romans. The Christians were mostly from a Jewish and other pagan background (such as Greek). He was writing to the Corinthians (Greece). There was a great persecution under the Roman government going on at that time. In spite of the horrendous laws that were prejudicial against the Christians, they were to obey the law. Laws were deliberately enacted to make Christians look like criminals. Not until Constantine became emperor in the fourth century did Christianity become legalized. Up until then it was an "outlawed" religion, and Christians were vehemently persecuted, even as Saul carried papers to arrest and jail papers just before he was saved. In that kind of atmosphere Paul tells them to obey the government; obey those that are in authority. Paul is not speaking of going to war. He is speaking of obeying the government that is ruling over you, no matter what kind of government it is. Never do we find Paul or Christ countenancing war or bearing arms. I don't believe that you can justify the use of Romans 13 for that.

Read the context.
They said they had two swords. Jesus said it is enough.
Had they said they had one sword, Jesus would have said: it is enough.
Had they said they had no swords, Jesus would have said: it is enough.
Why: He didn't need defence. He rebuked Peter for having a sword. He told him to put up his sword, and told him that he had the power to call 12 legions of angels from Heaven to protect him. The sword was only getting Peter in trouble at a time when Jesus was trying to secure their freedom. It was Christ that the soldiers wanted, not the disciples.

Verse 37 makes reference to vs.36 being a prophecy.
Here is verse 38:

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
--If Jesus had really meant for them all to take up a sword, then why didn't they all have one? Why were there only two? It is obvious that the meaning of verse 36 is not that each disciple should at that time have a sword. Two swords among the twelve of them was enough. One would have been enough, and as it turned out, even that one was one too many.

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
--Peter was acting for Satan here. He was trying to prevent Christ from drinking the cup of suffering which the Father had given Christ. Christ rebuked him and told him to put up his sword. Using his sword here was a satanic act. It was precisely what Satan wanted him to do--to keep him from the cross.

 

I've always thought this was interesting:

I would like someone to show where scripture shows either Christ or the Apostles tell those soldiers who became saved to get out of the army or even ever allude to such. Fact: you can't find it. There is nothing that speaks against it and nothing specifically to it. Why? IMO - I think because someone must be the sword that the goverment bears not in vain.

Yet in the above verses I quoted, we find Jesus even telling his disciples to get a sword. They say we have two, and He states "it is enough". So much for absolute pacifism.

There is a time for everything, even war.

 

If your wife and/or children were assaulted on the street you would defend them.

Justified war is the defense of your nation, your extended family.

It is the duty of your government to protect you and yours from enemies both foreign and domestic. This IMO is allowed by Genesis 9:6 and the citizenry is the number one defense resource to be the instruments of God to bring wrath upon the Hitlers of this world.

When war is initiated as an offense, then it is wrong.

In my day when their was a draft you could become a concientious objector. Even at that you could serve by becoming a medic or a support person of some kind and not have to kill.

Now, you can stay at home if you wish.

HankD

 

Hmmm...

True...but...
Either it IS true or it is not.

Justin Martyr was still a man and like ALL men fallable. You know as well as I that we can all quote some christian personage from history to go along with our particular views. I would like to know where you got the quote from however to see the context, because if by 'enemies' he means those agianst our belief in Christ as God and Savior - He is right since that is the typical biblical context (Rom 5:8, Phil 3:18, Gal 4:16). But war in a national context, he has absolutely no biblical support whereby to make his statement stand. In light of that he would be wrong, though a noble idea it is not a biblical one.