Violence

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

.

I've dealt with all of that passage entirely. You can't read the full context and really believe that Jesus intended for the disciples to use the swords for self defense. It just isn't possible. The Lord NEVER "advised His disciples to use it," that is not in scripture AT ALL.

That's not "dealing with it," Bos, it is ignoring it. Your answer begs the quesiton, which I already asked, why would Jesus not then advise His disciples to "throw away" their swords, rather than simply "put away," and why would He want to them to own a sword if He never intended for them to use it?

Jesus is speaking about division due to his teaching, particularly among families! You cannot honestly say that he is teaching here that he wants his followers to use violence. That's pure fantasy!

You miss the point. Strife is anathema to your viewpoint, yet Jesus specifically states that strife is all that He will bring. "Peace" is not just the absence of violence, it is also the absence of strife, and yet He identifies circumstances in which families will be in conflict. That's not the pacifist way, now is it?

I absolutely believe in the immutability of God. However that has nothing to do with this. If giving a new command of non-violence was contrary to God's immutability then you would have to also affirm that Jesus making all foods clean is contrary to God's immutability. Or that no longer requiring ritual washing was contrary to immutability. In short, if you want to take immutability to that level then you have to affirm that we are still under the entirety of the Old Testament Law. I know that you don't do this. The fundamental distinction is that we are under a different covenant entirely than the OT Israelites were.

That makes the mistake of codifying everything from the Old Testament as being part of the Law. Obviously it was not. Jesus did not command war as an ordinance or rite, but He definitely commanded it in response to the enemies of God and of Israel who would work violence against the people. And the fallacy that the covenants between God and Israel and God and Christians is disproven in that faith is always the deciding factor in salvation. It was not by the Law, but by faith, that justification has always occurred. He never gave the Law to justify. He gave the Law to condemn. That pretty much renders your chart ...

Below are just a handful of examples off the top of my head that show the radical change between covenants.


Old Covenant: New Covenant:
Forbidden foods All foods clean
Ritual washing No ritual washing
Sacrificial system Fulfilled in Christ, no more sacrifices
Polygamy permitted Polygamy forbidden
Required tithe Voluntary giving
Eye for an eye Eye for an eye abolishedirrelevant to the thread.

... irrelevant to the thread.

For an OT Israelite to do (or not do) the things on the list under the New Covenant would have been sin. Yet today that is the law and ethic we obey. This is not a problem for immutability - neither is the OT permission and NT prohibition of violence. Just because God's covenant has changed and the requirements he places on his people has changed, doesn't mean that he has changed. Surely you recognize this.

If what you say is true, then making what you call "the new covenant" with the church also defies God's immutability. Your error lies in your perception of salvation being different for Old Testament saints than it is for New Testament saints. It is not.

Again... for the umpteenth time... I have NEVER said that we "stand by passively while they rape, loot and pillage."

And yes we fight justly, I agree. How do we do this?

2Co 10:3-5 NASB - For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,​

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 does not deal with actual warfare, but spiritual warfare, against which weapons such as swords and slings are not effective. Your passage doesn't deal with the issue of pacifism and non-violence.

 

[RLBosley]

You're not paying attention. I didn't say these verses had nothing to do with violence. I said in post #12, "there are no verses in the entire Bible, including those you listed, which forbid violence in general, especially for self defense. I stand by that statement, which remains unanswered.

You said that there are no verses that forbid violence in general. They certainly do.

Concerning these three passages, simply defending myself does not mean I do not love the attacker. Secondly, "Live at peace with all men" in Rom. 12:18 is prefaced with "As much as is in you," so it certainly is not a command against violence. Thirdly, how does subduing a person who is attacking me or my family count as evil? It only does if you have a presupposition that all violence is evil.

Romans 12 also says never repay evil with evil and never avenge yourself. At it's core violent self defense is avenging yourself, I don't see how you can deny that. The "as much as in you" clause means just that, the believer is to do everything he can to live at peace even if the world doesn't. If the wicked decide they don't want peace, the believers obligation isn't changed.

No, sorry, you are the one being absurd. No one is advocating "beating up" an attacker or killing them, least of all me. I've never beat up or killed anyone, nor have I ever taught it in any self defense class or seminar I've ever taught. Furthermore, not resisting an insult does not logically translate to not resisting violence. That is a non sequitor.

Here's what I'm saying. If Jesus forbids us to even respond to something a simple and harmless as an insult, then how on earth can you justify responding to something greater? It doesn't make sense for him to forbid the one, but then permit the other, especially when he never actually approves of violence. In fact the similar passage in Luke 6, from a similar but separate sermon says:

Luk 6:29 NASB - "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.​

Totally different word. Hit not slap, and there is no reason to think Jesus is only referring to an insulting slap here (I would argue that isn't in Matt 5 either for the record).

You've completely missed the point. Never mind if I have a kingdom or not. The passage clearly teaches that Christ was not against all violence, but there is a proper place for violence. Perhaps this is the best passage in the Bible to advocate a just war doctrine.

No it doesn't. You have to horribly twist that verse to say that it permits fighting" for Christians. I agree the nations can fight, but that isn't the topic at hand.

You changed the subject. Neither I nor anyone else here is advocating the church inflicting violence. And my point was that violence is not ergo evil if God is doing it. Therefore if it is not evil to God, there are times when it is not evil to His people.

I didn't' change the subject, you asked what I say about the violence performed by Jesus in Revelation. I answered it and also pointed out that Christians never perform violence in the book. Just like Paul admonishes in Romans 12, we leave vengeance to God and that's what Revelation clearly shows. And really yes you are advocating the church using violence. You are saying that Christians can use violence, the church is made up of Christians, therefore the church can use violence.

I thought better of you. Let me put it this way. If a man comes in my house and tries to rape my wife but I subdue him violently, am I then as wicked as the pastor I know who slept with a 17 year old not his wife and is now in the pen?

And by the way, my conscience is 100% pure in this area. I haven't had a violent conflict with anyone in almost 50 years unless you count teaching self defense (which to me is an act of love). It's disappointing that you would make this accusation. I thought better of you, but now I know.

And I thought better of you. I have consistently enjoyed your posts. I was shocked that you responded in such a mean spirited way and twisting my words. I have not made an accusation. I asked a question. And your question is so ridiculous it isn't worth an answer.

Violence is physical action taken against another person. You said violence causes harm, but it may or may not. I can put an armlock on you that will cause immense pain but not harm you at all. A policeman may have a violent shootout with a bad guy with both missing every shot, as has happened, and no one being harmed.

Oh please. You know that I didn't mean that it has to cause lasting harm in order for it to be violence. Stop being silly.

Well said. How to handle persecution and how to defend one's self against wicked people (with no religious animus) are two different matters.

So Jesus only meant to be loving to enemies who hate us for our faith?

 

[RLBosley]

.That's not "dealing with it," Bos, it is ignoring it. Your answer begs the quesiton, which I already asked, why would Jesus not then advise His disciples to "throw away" their swords, rather than simply "put away," and why would He want to them to own a sword if He never intended for them to use it?

Again, I have literally answered every one of your points already. I've dealt with it, you are ignoring the answer.

.You miss the point. Strife is anathema to your viewpoint, yet Jesus specifically states that strife is all that He will bring. "Peace" is not just the absence of violence, it is also the absence of strife, and yet He identifies circumstances in which families will be in conflict. That's not the pacifist way, now is it?

You're the one missing the point. He is saying that following him will result in division, strife as you put it. That is not contradictory to saying Christians should react to this strife by non-violent means.

.That makes the mistake of codifying everything from the Old Testament as being part of the Law. Obviously it was not. Jesus did not command war as an ordinance or rite, but He definitely commanded it in response to the enemies of God and of Israel who would work violence against the people. And the fallacy that the covenants between God and Israel and God and Christians is disproven in that faith is always the deciding factor in salvation. It was not by the Law, but by faith, that justification has always occurred. He never gave the Law to justify. He gave the Law to condemn. That pretty much renders your chart ... ... irrelevant to the thread.

This doesn't make a bit of sense. What on earth do you mean "the fallacy of the covenants"? Were the Jews not under the Mosaic Covenant, a different covenant than we are today? Are there not real legal differences in the stipulations in the Covenants? And I made no mistake in anything I listed, it is all Law.

.If what you say is true, then making what you call "the new covenant" with the church also defies God's immutability. Your error lies in your perception of salvation being different for Old Testament saints than it is for New Testament saints. It is not.

Now you are just in fantasy land. PLEASE show me anywhere I even HINTED that I believe the Old Testament saints were saved in a different way. I would love to see it. Nothing I have said defies immutability. You are simply mistaken.

.2 Corinthians 10:3-5 does not deal with actual warfare, but spiritual warfare, against which weapons such as swords and slings are not effective. Your passage doesn't deal with the issue of pacifism and non-violence.

Yes it deals with spiritual warfare. That is the war Christians fight. Paul clearly says we do not war according to the flesh, instead we engage in spiritual war, and that is how we "fight justly" as you put it. I can't believe you actually misunderstood my point there.

 

[RLBosley]

Jesus himself commanded his Apostles to get swords to defend themselves with though...

First, already dealt with it here
Second, where does Jesus tells the disciples to use the swords "to defend themselves". I'll be waiting.

And when a person does crime, or behaves by rape/murder others, they will fall under the judgement of God for their crimes in the sense of penaly assessed, and one of those just might be having the one getting wronged have the to defend themselves against the attacker!
i see nothing in the NT that prohibits a christian carrying a gun, having martial arts traiining, boxing skills etc, and not being able to use appropiate force to defend themselves with!

I know some would see it as not having faith in God to protect us if we are threatened by rape/murder/robbery, but I see it more as using what the Lord
provided to us for protection!

Well that's kind of the point of this thread. If you have an actual argument in your favor I'd love to hear it.

John the baptist did not tell the soldiers to lay down their weapons did he?

We don't know. In what was recorded no he doesn't - unless you are reading the KJV. Regardless, Jesus was after John the Baptist. So his ethical teachings came later.

God was the one thay had israel execute his judgement upon those pagan nations, so if God is always against use of force then?

I never said God is "always against the use of force" Yes God commanded war in the OT, also I believe Jesus himself will come with violence. That doesn't change that Christians are prohibited from it.

And Jesus had His disciples take up swords for defense, so?

Nope.

 

[Sapper Woody]

can you really say you are loving your enemy by killing him? I do not believe there is any logical or exegetical evidence to say that you can love someone by killing them.

I never said you were loving them by killing them, I said you were loving them while killing them. There's a HUGE difference there, and it's not semantics.

Using lethal force, even in self-defense, is returning evil for evil.

You've said this, or something like this, in several posts now. Protecting yourself or someone else is not vengeance. Vengeance is a desire to get even for a real or imagined harm done to you. This is forbidden. Protection is an act of preventing harm to yourself or others, and so being a good steward of what God has given you. As I stated before, you don't have to hate someone to incapacitate them, even if it means using lethal force.

Not upset or offended. No worries there.

I am glad of that. I know that some would have said it in a mean spirited way, and I am glad that you recognized that I did not mean it in that way.

my responsibility to love my enemies is not negated by my love for her. Like I said, there are no exceptions to Jesus' teaching. This may sound heartless, I hope it doesn't come across like that though. But the Bible never tells me that loving my neighbor or even my wife is superior to loving my enemy. In fact, Jesus redefined our enemy as our neighbor, as illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan.

I won't belabor the point, but just point out that Jesus never said the opposite either. He never said that loving your enemy is superior (while a greater reward is given, yes. But not a greater commandment) to loving your neighbor. In an equal love to both, you stop one from hurting the other. He has brought the consequences on himself.

Think of the man that stopped the consequences of the Ark falling. He was killed. He didn't allow others' consequences to come to fruition, and instead bore the brunt of the consequences. Sometimes you have to let the Ark fall. In this case, it's allowing the consequences of their decision to break and enter and threaten, instead of shielding them from the consequences, and allowing yourself or others you love to bear them.

I never said that we should allow them to do evil unopposed. As I have said, restrain the attacker, take the attack instead, try to get away, all those are options.

On this I agree. A last resort should be lethal force. Only use as much force as is necessary to subdue the opponent.

I agree that Jesus never said we are to go to death willingly, and it is not what I believe. I think we are to preserve life if at all possible, including our own. I thank you for your concern. Trust me, I have not come to this decision secretly or without her input. She has been right here with me in this struggle, and has come to agree with me. I do however take some offense at your insinuation that I would do nothing when you say "inaction." I've consistently said that pacifism does not equal passiveness.

It may not be your intention, but this is coming off as a contradiction. You say that even self defense is vengeance. You say that we shouldn't hurt the attacker, because that would be violent, yet you say that you wouldn't remain inactive. I guess I'm a little confused as to what you mean. Can I get a little more clarification?

 

[RLBosley]

Agree! Totally.


Agree with some 'minor quibbles'.

Thank you. I disn't expect anyone to agree, so that you and Tom agree even with minor quibbles is nice to hear. Minor differences is to be expected.

Yes, it is an excellent topic, the points he raises should be self-evident, and the desire to 'do no ill' to one's neighbor should be the NATURAL INCLINATION of the regenerate heart, but, do you really think that Christ was changing the law in the SOM? Or was He, as author of the law, giving an exposition of the law showing the spirituality of the law? I personally don’t believe that He changed anything, He expounded upon it. For instance, I believe Ecc 3:1-8 is just as true today as it was then and He did not tell the soldiers seeking guidance (Lu 3:14) to change their occupations.

Thank you again. I totally agree that peacemaking and enemy love should be our natural inclination, especially in light of the teaching of Jesus.

And yes I do believe Jesus changed the Law in a sense. I believe the OT Law was a temporary law that was intrinsically tied to that covenant. Jesus fulfilled that Law and it's Covenant thereby removing it, and brought in his Law and Covenant. In the antitheses in Matt 5 I can see where on some points he would only be giving spiritual exposition, but there are other points where he really does overturn Mosaic Law - the Lex Talionis for example. The books of Galatians and Hebrews really solidify that for me. Here's a couple verses that I think agree with my interpretation:

Gal 3:17-19 NASB - What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.​

The Law (Clearly referring to the Mosaic Law) came 430 years after Abraham, therefore it couldn't have been eternal. It was "added...until" Christ came. So the Law and it's Covenant had a specific beginning point and termination point.

Heb 7:11-12 NASB - Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.​

The writer clearly brings the Law, the Covenant and the priesthood together as one, as a unit. If one is changed then the others must as well. The topic here is the priesthood, so he concludes that if the priesthood had changed, and it had - from Levites to Christ as High Priest - then there must also, "of necessity" be a change "of law." So I believe yes Jesus changed the Law when he changed the Covenant and the Priesthood. We are not under Moses' Law but under Christ's Law.

When He says to love your enemies, I can’t imagine that He meant God’s enemies (Ps 139:21-24). Remember that His immediate audience was Israel, which, considered typically (by type), indicates He is referring to your enemies ‘in the Lord’, and it’s the religious persecution that was soon to come upon them from their own fellow Jews (Heb 10:32-37) that is the immediate intent here. I believe that “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” is intended within the realm of religious persecution, i.e. Jews persecuting Jews, and later Christians persecuting Christians. Imagine the impact that the martyrdom of Stephen had upon Saul, or Servetus upon Calvin. But I can’t imagine that He intended for us to abandon our survival instincts to defend ourselves in the face of great danger from the criminal/sociopathic element.

I think that there is some merit in looking at it that way. Obviously he was indeed primarily talking about those who persecute the Christians for their faith. However I don't think he was limiting it only to that either. He simply says love your enemies, in Luke 6 he says, "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also;" I think he really meant whoever, not just those who hate our religion. Similarly Paul said, "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone...be at peace with all men...Never take your own revenge." Yes the early church would have primarily been concerned with persecution, but I think the principle certainly applies to all enemies.

Also from a practical stand point I don't know how we could always reliably differentiate between a religious enemy and a normal criminal.

On the other hand RLB, I greatly admire your nonviolent stance in the spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ, I’ve no doubt that you’re the kind of gentle people I always enjoy being in the company of.

You give me too much credit.

 

[RLBosley]

I never said you were loving them by killing them, I said you were loving them while killing them. There's a HUGE difference there, and it's not semantics.

I'm sorry but I don't see how that can be anything other than semantics. I really don't see any way that you can kill someone if you love them.

You've said this, or something like this, in several posts now. Protecting yourself or someone else is not vengeance. Vengeance is a desire to get even for a real or imagined harm done to you. This is forbidden. Protection is an act of preventing harm to yourself or others, and so being a good steward of what God has given you. As I stated before, you don't have to hate someone to incapacitate them, even if it means using lethal force.

Them killing you is evil right? If they try killing you and you kill them instead, I don't see how you can say that is anything but returning evil for evil. You specifically have done to them the evil that they intended for you.

I am glad of that. I know that some would have said it in a mean spirited way, and I am glad that you recognized that I did not mean it in that way.

Not at all. I know why you said it and I really do appreciate the push back. It's helpful.

I won't belabor the point, but just point out that Jesus never said the opposite either. He never said that loving your enemy is superior (while a greater reward is given, yes. But not a greater commandment) to loving your neighbor. In an equal love to both, you stop one from hurting the other. He has brought the consequences on himself.

Think of the man that stopped the consequences of the Ark falling. He was killed. He didn't allow others' consequences to come to fruition, and instead bore the brunt of the consequences. Sometimes you have to let the Ark fall. In this case, it's allowing the consequences of their decision to break and enter and threaten, instead of shielding them from the consequences, and allowing yourself or others you love to bear them.

Granted. I agree that the commands are equal. But that means that I should also put the same effort in keeping my enemy from harm that I put into keeping my neighbor from harm. That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If I have to bear the harm myself instead then so be it.

On this I agree. A last resort should be lethal force. Only use as much force as is necessary to subdue the opponent.

It may not be your intention, but this is coming off as a contradiction. You say that even self defense is vengeance. You say that we shouldn't hurt the attacker, because that would be violent, yet you say that you wouldn't remain inactive. I guess I'm a little confused as to what you mean. Can I get a little more clarification?

Well I don't know what else to say other than what you just actually quoted:

I never said that we should allow them to do evil unopposed. As I have said, restrain the attacker, take the attack instead, try to get away, all those are options.

I'm still not sure how I feel about things like tasers or pepper spray. I go back and forth on those. On one hand I see them as violent, on the other I see them as a way to stop an attack without causing permanent harm which would be loving I think. Something I'm still struggling with.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Them killing you is evil right? If they try killing you and you kill them instead, I don't see how you can say that is anything but returning evil for evil. You specifically have done to them the evil that they intended for you.

Granted. I agree that the commands are equal. But that means that I should also put the same effort in keeping my enemy from harm that I put into keeping my neighbor from harm. That's the logical conclusion isn't it? If I have to bear the harm myself instead then so be it.[\QUOTE]

And here's the crux of the argument. Bearing the brunt of the consequences myself, I have no problem with. But if I allow someone to kill me, who bears the consequence? Not me. I'm in Heaven having the time of my (after)life.

So who bears the consequences? He's going to bear his consequences when the law catches him. There's no way around that. But my wife, and my three daughters now have to live with the consequences their entire lives. Double punishment. Justice gets him, and my family has to bear me being gone. Instead of allowing this to happen, I handle it. I defend myself. He gets the consequences that were coming to him anyway, and my family is spared the consequences. it's the greater love.

If he kills me and has a family, they're going to live without him anyway once the law gets him, due to either life in prison or death. I can't change that. But if he kills me, my family also has to bear the brunt of the consequences. So, by trying to bear the consequences myself by not stopping him to point of killing him if need be, then I have doubled the amount of consequences that have to be endured.

In my mind, this is the lesser love.

 

[RLBosley]

And here's the crux of the argument. Bearing the brunt of the consequences myself, I have no problem with. But if I allow someone to kill me, who bears the consequence? Not me. I'm in Heaven having the time of my (after)life.

So who bears the consequences? He's going to bear his consequences when the law catches him. There's no way around that. But my wife, and my three daughters now have to live with the consequences their entire lives. Double punishment. Justice gets him, and my family has to bear me being gone. Instead of allowing this to happen, I handle it. I defend myself. He gets the consequences that were coming to him anyway, and my family is spared the consequences. it's the greater love.

If he kills me and has a family, they're going to live without him anyway once the law gets him, due to either life in prison or death. I can't change that. But if he kills me, my family also has to bear the brunt of the consequences. So, by trying to bear the consequences myself by not stopping him to point of killing him if need be, then I have doubled the amount of consequences that have to be endured.

In my mind, this is the lesser love.

First I really want to thank you for the discussion. The way you are handling it is great, even though you obviously disagree with me. This is the attitude this board and it's participants (myself included) need more of.

Second, this is probably the best argument I have seen against my position. However, my main objection is that I don't see this rationale as overturning what I believe to be clear commands in scripture, to love my enemy and do good to him, not returning his evil with evil. In the end it really sounds like you're saying "I see what Jesus was saying, but it's just not practical enough in the real world."

Also, the situation presented, of taking the violence on myself, would be an absolute last resort. I would prefer to restrain him or get away first. Obviously that wouldn't always be possible though.

But you've given me more to consider. I will think about this more, but I am still unconvinced that this adequately counters the non-violence position.

 

[padredurand]

If he kills me and has a family, they're going to live without him anyway once the law gets him, due to either life in prison or death. I can't change that. But if he kills me, my family also has to bear the brunt of the consequences. So, by trying to bear the consequences myself by not stopping him to point of killing him if need be, then I have doubled the amount of consequences that have to be endured.

In my mind, this is the lesser love.

Nehemiah 4:14 NAS77
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."

 

[asterisktom]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the example of Sergeant York, you must admit, it certainly seems that the Lord strengthened his hand in combat.

Sgt. York certainly came to mind in this discussion. And, yes, it does seem that God strengthened his hand in combat.

He seems to be an appropriate intersection between the two basic positions. But I hesitated to mention him. Aside from wanting to keep the points of discussion top-level (Biblical), York's story is not as compelling at a closer look IMO.

York was a pretty interesting individual. He is mostly admirable for his WW1 exploits and his later endeavors to build and maintain his school. I also admire his not willing to so quickly cash in on his fame, though he did cave somewhat in the 40s when the Cooper film was made.

Less known - certainly not to me - were his occasional distinctly non-pacifist comments. Your source said that York "questioned the failure of United Nations forces to use the atomic bomb in Korea." These were the generals who wanted to unleash on Korea - and old Manchuria, the very section of China where I live now - an "atomic necklace". Incredible overkill! Millions of innocent civilians, many of them quite pro-Western - would have been annihilated. Such a beastly response, and yet one advocated by ones held up as examples (MacArthur and York) in our Christian schools.

And also, pushing for the US to nuke Russia in the late 40s, York said:

"If they can't find anyone else to push the button, I will."

This is hardly the Sgt. York from the A Beka textbook I taught from back in 00s. I wish I would have known this.

We both know bottom line is that the best proofs for or against a view is Scripture. I still believe that Christians as a whole - especially American Christendom - is less on the side of the angels than we think. Both as a nation and as individuals we tend to equate non-violence with mere pacifism, cowardice, fatalism - unbelief, even.

But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and the earnest proof of our faith.

Yes, it is an excellent topic, the points he raises should be self-evident, and the desire to 'do no ill' to one's neighbor should be the NATURAL INCLINATION of the regenerate heart, but, do you really think that Christ was changing the law in the SOM? Or was He, as author of the law, giving an exposition of the law showing the spirituality of the law? I personally don’t believe that He changed anything, He expounded upon it. For instance, I believe Ecc 3:1-8 is just as true today as it was then and He did not tell the soldiers seeking guidance (Lu 3:14) to change their occupations.

The point about John the Baptist, especially, is well taken. I can't say I've arrived at a fixed position on all of this. My answer now would be that John was speaking from within the dispensation that was still current. Also, I believe his allowing comment to the soldiers was perhaps one of indulgent permission, not of advocation.

Concerning Ecc: This doesn't necessarily teach that all of these "times" were not to have an end. In fact, I believe that we are now in the time of "beating swords into plowshares".

But I can't bring myself to say that we do not need soldiers or armies at all. Like I said, I still need to work parts of this equation out.

This is all I have time for now.

 

[asterisktom]

Uh oh. I inadvertantly left out a phrase. I meant to write:
"But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and should be an integral part of our faith." (The "earnest proof" sentence I had deleted.)

Sorry for the confusion. I don't at all mean that those who disagree with me on this are not spiritual.

 

[Aaron]

Yes it does, as I've consistently affirmed in this thread and others. When it comes to specific occupations I believe that we can serve in capacities that do not involve violence, particularly lethal force. So for me, being a LEO or soldier is out.

The one who wields the sword is a minister of God.

Not even close to what I'm saying.

It's the effect of what you're saying. It's corban.

 

[kyredneck]

Sgt. York certainly came to mind...

Sheesh Tom, never mind about York! He came to mind solely because of the movie I remember from my youth. I was willing to overlook him being a brawler in his younger days but I should've read the entire article before posting the link.

What do you think about Aaron's application of 'corban' on this topic?

 

[John of Japan]

You said that there are no verses that forbid violence in general. They certainly do.

I disagree. Don't pontificate, debate. It's not debate until you actually answer your opponent's points.

Romans 12 also says never repay evil with evil and never avenge yourself. At it's core violent self defense is avenging yourself, I don't see how you can deny that. The "as much as in you" clause means just that, the believer is to do everything he can to live at peace even if the world doesn't. If the wicked decide they don't want peace, the believers obligation isn't changed.

I completely disagree. Violent self defense is not vengeance in any way, shape or form. It is about opposing and stopping evil. Vengeance implies forethought, but self-defense is for the moment. In fact, to a trained martial artist, self-defense occurs without thought at all, due to the training taking over.

You keep making statements without proving them. That's not debate. I'm sorry, but I do not accept you as a teacher.

Here's what I'm saying. If Jesus forbids us to even respond to something a simple and harmless as an insult, then how on earth can you justify responding to something greater? It doesn't make sense for him to forbid the one, but then permit the other, especially when he never actually approves of violence.

That's an illogical position. Insult that does not harm physically does not equal a violent attack that may cause harm. If you want to make this point, don't just state it, go on to prove it. You've not proven this point. Give examples, give other Scripture.

In fact the similar passage in Luke 6, from a similar but separate sermon says:

Luk 6:29 NASB - "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.​

Totally different word. Hit not slap, and there is no reason to think Jesus is only referring to an insulting slap here (I would argue that isn't in Matt 5 either for the record).

This is the first point you've made that I believe is valid. It is a good point. However, note that Jesus did not literally follow this when he was struck in Luke 22:64 (same Greek word). So the striking in Luke 6:29 must be of a just sort--in other words, did one deserve being slapped or struck?

No it doesn't. You have to horribly twist that verse to say that it permits fighting" for Christians. I agree the nations can fight, but that isn't the topic at hand.

If a nation can fight, an individual can fight. A nation's wars are not yet fought by robots, but by individuals.

I didn't' change the subject, you asked what I say about the violence performed by Jesus in Revelation. I answered it and also pointed out that Christians never perform violence in the book. Just like Paul admonishes in Romans 12, we leave vengeance to God and that's what Revelation clearly shows. And really yes you are advocating the church using violence. You are saying that Christians can use violence, the church is made up of Christians, therefore the church can use violence.

First of all, stop referring to self defense as revenge. If you think it is, prove your point, don't just pontificate as if your saying so made it so.

Secondly, I don't believe in a "universal church," so your point here is a non-starter with me. If I on my own defend my family, that is not ergo, my local church committing violence (something I would oppose).

And I thought better of you. I have consistently enjoyed your posts. I was shocked that you responded in such a mean spirited way and twisting my words. I have not made an accusation. I asked a question. And your question is so ridiculous it isn't worth an answer.

Yes, I get it. You get to decide what I am or am not offended by in your posts. And if I object to your statement, I am ergo, "mean-spirited."

But your first paragraphs in your OP remainsoffensive in that you compared self defense to fornication, etc. And then you think yourself righteous for mocking my posts and saying they are not worth answering. That makes you above me, more righteous and intelligent than I am, right?

Oh please. You know that I didn't mean that it has to cause lasting harm in order for it to be violence. Stop being silly.

If you didn't mean such, you should not have used the term "harm" in your definition. And once again, you mock my post by calling it silly, so you yourself look more intelligent and righteous.

So Jesus only meant to be loving to enemies who hate us for our faith?

Once again, you assume too much. The Bible teaches that if you love your son you will spank him (Prov. 13:24), which is an act of violence. Again, God chastens us because He loves us (Prov. 3:12), sometimes violently, as when God chastened me with a knee injury and surgery when I was in Bible college.

 

[John of Japan]

One interesting thing on this thread is that we who are posting against non-violence are using quite different arguments (all equally valid). My point here is that if non-violence were valid, why would there be so many different Biblical and logical ways to argue against it?

 

[just-want-peace]

If one chooses to be "non-violent" under ANY circumstances, that is their prerogative. "Getting even", is, I agree, an act of vengeance, and prohibited by scripture; but defending self and/or others is not "vengeance".

If "YOU" (whoever that may be) are so against "violence", and I am aware of it, I will consciously refrain from intervening should the occasion arise, in accordance with "YOUR" beliefs.

However, "YOUR" refusal to physically protect your own family will not dictate my action if/when necessary.

If a man will not protect his family, well, I'll let you create your own adjective for such!!!! :tear:

Oh, getting a perp to focus on "YOU", in no way guarantees that future violence against your wife/daughter or other family members is negated; it could be merely delayed for a few minutes, in which case what have you accomplished????

Also one must STRONGLY consider whether the impetus to reject violence en toto is coming from God, self, or satan.

 

[kyredneck]

In no way construe what I've posted to be 'against' non-violence, I am very much for non-violence as far as it is possible and rational.

Anyone so far mention the violence done to others through words, or speech? You know, as in young children not physically but verbally abused, or ridiculed, made fun of, mocked, etc.. Verbal violence can have lifelong effects on another human.

 

[Revmitchell]

A man that does not protect his family by any and all means needs to be taken out back of the wood shed. I have no use for them. Shameful

 

[padredurand]

A man that does not protect his family by any and all means needs to be taken out back of the wood shed. I have no use for them. Shameful

I posted this a few pages back. I believe it supports what you are saying

Nehemiah 4:14 NAS77
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."