What does it mean to be a 'soldier for Christ'?

[Jarthur001]

Are all believers soldiers?

 

[Rippon]

Are all believers soldiers?

I think some are in retreat.

 

[Rubato 1]

We all fight the spiritual warfare. However (as I recall), the Bible never calls us soldiers, but tells us to endure hardness AS a soldier. As in any 'army' (if we are in an army), not all are soldiers. It depends how you want to look at it.

It can be inferred from 2 Tim 2:4 that some are chosen to be soldiers (which would also imply that some are not chosen).

We are supposed to wear the 'armor of God' for some reason...
Romans 13 refers to the 'armor of light'; 2 Cor 6 to the 'armor of righteousness.'

I think the analogy of a christian to a soldier seems pretty legit...

IMO,

R1

 

[Jarthur001]

As in any 'army' (if we are in an army), not all are soldiers. It depends how you want to look at it

.
I have never been in the army, but if we were to take this analogy to the end, it would seem to me that a Christian soldier is the very least a believer should be. Yes some are soldiers and leaders or sargent what have ya, and Christ is our Captain (heb 2:10-11)

It can be inferred from 2 Tim 2:4 that some are chosen to be soldiers (which would also imply that some are not chosen).

In other words are you saying this...?

That all believers are "chosen of Christ to be soldiers"?
That non-believers are not chosen to be soldiers?

Is this like saying a person is chosen for salvation?

We are supposed to wear the 'armor of God' for some reason...

Eph 6...Yes to fight is the reason.

Romans 13 refers to the 'armor of light'; 2 Cor 6 to the 'armor of righteousness.

'
And I agree that this fits right in with the analogy. I want to point out that most people don't walk around with armor on. Only soldiers wear it. In other words, a non-soldier is not called here to carry the armor of light, but a believer/soldier is told he must.

I think the analogy of a christian to a soldier seems pretty legit...

I agree.

 

[Gina B]

Of course we are.

We're fighting against evil every day.

However, I don't think it's supposed to be evil that others are doing, it's supposed to be fighting within ourselves to stay pure and holy. This is how we grow and become closer to the Lord.

As far as others go, we don't war with them, we love them and teach tell them the good news of Christ. We fight by standing against wrong and not doing it ourselves. When that happens, Lucifer and his angels lose their war with you. With me.
Christ isn't in a war with the unsaved. He's waving a peace flag and offering them all the benefits and honors of sons and daughters.

 

[tinytim]

Right, Gina (And may I say I have missed you... come back, please)

Jesus is in the recruitment business.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I have to agree with Gina.

We are fighting "powers and principalities of the air". That description infers a spiritual war.

Other scriptures tell us that the greatest battle in this war is within ourselves, keeping ourselves holy and pure.

 

[abcgrad94]

I believe we all enlisted as soldiers when we got saved.

 

[Gina B]

Right, Gina (And may I say I have missed you... come back, please)

Jesus is in the recruitment business.

Thanks.
And I never left left, I just left, so I am here, and back more now than I wasn't when I was away. :type:

 

[Jarthur001]

I’m not really disagreeing with you guys, but I do not think it is as simply as been stated so far.

For starters, we must deal with these verses….

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Within the soldier analogy God also views non-believers as the enmity of God. In fact friendship seems to be wrong.

Now many may want to claim that this is the world system. The system is wrong, because it is sinful. Dogs do not sin. A house does not sin. Governments can only sin if people are part of governments.

Mankind is the one that sins, and you cannot remove man from the world system for it is man that sins.

ok....what is your thoughts?

 

[JustChristian]

I believe we all enlisted as soldiers when we got saved.

Amen. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Jarthur001]

I believe we all enlisted as soldiers when we got saved.

Would it not be better said that God enlisted us?

2 Timothy 2:4 (New American Standard Bible)

4No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.

But yes, I agree that all believers are to be soldiers of Christ.

 

[abcgrad94]

Would it not be better said that God enlisted us?

I guess if I were a Calvinist I might say it that way, but I'm not.

 

[Gina B]

Would it not be better said that God enlisted us?

What would be the difference? Would it change how you interact with others or what is expected of you as a child of God?

If you wish to be semantical about it (I made that up, don't know if it's a real word but I like it!) then no, it wouldn't be better. It gives way too vivid a vision of God pouncing down on a person and sending them off on a suicide mission. We're not on a mission to win some war of God's, he's perfectly capable of doing that on his own. We are not needed to help God out, he's here to help us in the war of sin we brought on ourselves. He enlisted Himself, undeserving as we were, praise be!

 

[Jarthur001]

I guess if I were a Calvinist I might say it that way, but I'm not.

I'm not sure one has to be a Calvinist to say that. I only posted a Bible verse. You must agree that this is what it says. Now we both could take it and add our own meaning to it.

 

[Jarthur001]

What would be the difference? Would it change how you interact with others or what is expected of you as a child of God?

If you wish to be semantical about it (I made that up, don't know if it's a real word but I like it!) then no, it wouldn't be better. It gives way too vivid a vision of God pouncing down on a person and sending them off on a suicide mission. We're not on a mission to win some war of God's, he's perfectly capable of doing that on his own. We are not needed to help God out, he's here to help us in the war of sin we brought on ourselves. He enlisted Himself, undeserving as we were, praise be!

Hello Gina,

What would be the difference? Would it change how you interact with others or what is expected of you as a child of God?

It will for me be different, and in fact it has changed the way I view others. I am only told to share the gospel and pray for others. At times some think it is cleaver words one may use, or maybe good stories they will win over people for Christ. But it is God that saves, and not our flowery words.

Have you been in a church service that deals with Church governement and have someone become a believer? And then maybe next week you may have the best gospel message preached and not one person responds? I don't understand it but to say it is how God works in mans heart.

So as to how it changes me, when I preach or share the good news, I am reminded it is not me and my words, but God. I pray for God to change hearts.

If you wish to be semantical about it (I made that up, don't know if it's a real word but I like it!) then no, it wouldn't be better.

Gina, what I asked was if we should say it like it is said in the Bible. Why is that not better?

It gives way too vivid a vision of God pouncing down on a person and sending them off on a suicide mission.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

We're not on a mission to win some war of God's, he's perfectly capable of doing that on his own.

I agree with this. I still say we are with war. It is not for us to fight the war, but God.

Look, I'm not saying we need to "fight" with people. I feel it would be good to see it as it is. One of my top ten books I love is "A long War Against God" by Dr. Henry Morris. If I had the book with me I would post some quotes from it. Morris shows how each movement by mankind is against God. Great book...read it if you can.

Anyway..I happen to agree with Morris in that if you are not "for God"..you are against Him.

We are not needed to help God out, he's here to help us in the war of sin we brought on ourselves.

I agree with what you mean.

He enlisted Himself, undeserving as we were, praise be!

Again let me quote the verse that got a few people upset.

2 Timothy 2:4 (New American Standard Bible)

4No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.

I agree with the verse. Do you?

 

[Gina B]

J: Hello

Gina: Hi!

J: Gina, what I asked was if we should say it like it is said in the Bible. Why is that not better?

Gina: The verse quoted is this (Darby Translation)

1 Thou therefore, my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be competent to instruct others also. 3 Take thy share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one going as a soldier entangles himself with the affairs of life, that he may please him who has enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And if also any one contend in the games, he is not crowned unless he contend lawfully. 6 The husbandman must labour before partaking of the fruits. 7 Think of what I say, for the Lord will give thee understanding in all things.

There are, quite frankly, two ways of looking at that. When you go to the army to enlist, they enlist you. First you go. That can very obviously be drawn from these verses. It says that the person went. "no one going..." Then it says he he was enlisted.

The second way of looking at it is this: he didn't go and enlist, he was already chosen, grateful to have been and wants to please the one who chose him. That can be obviously drawn from these phrases.


Gina: What would be the difference? Would it change how you interact with others or what is expected of you as a child of God?

J: It will for me be different, and in fact it has changed the way I view others. I am only told to share the gospel and pray for others. At times some think it is cleaver words one may use, or maybe good stories they will win over people for Christ. But it is God that saves, and not are flowery words.

Have you been in a church service that deals with Church governement and have someone become a believer? And then maybe next week you may have the best gospel message preached and not one person responds? I don't understand it but to say it is how God works in mans heart.

So as to how it changes me, when I preach or share the good news, I am reminded it is not me and my words, but God. I pray for God to change hearts.

Gina: Let me get this right. You're saying that by using the phrase "God enlisted us as soldiers" rather than "I believe we all enlisted as soldiers when we got saved," it has changed you when you preach or share the news of Christ?

You're a writer. I'm a writer. We both know that this is rather silly to pick over. The phrase CAN be turned into a cal/arm debate, but why should it? That topic can always be discussed in another thread where it was intended. I agree with you. It is God that saves. Is it through flowery words? Well, maybe. It is through Christ, who is the Word, and are we not indwelled at salvation, and it is the Word that speaks? The Word is both literal and figurative. The scripture is the Good News, and our mouths and lives (or hands, or letters) should manifest that, but back to my point...I think the scriptures can be QUITE flowery! It's not something to argue over and quite frankly, the cal/arm debate gets old and most often, when looked at honestly, is simply a matter of arguing over the way things are worded. I'd love to see Christians get over that. There is a real debate at the bottom of it that CAN effect how some people live their lives, so perhaps arguing the true points would be a good thing rather than arguing over how to word something if the discussion is to be fruitful. Makes me laugh sometimes to read the arguments like this...some of the most staunch opponents of Calvinism are the best Calvinists I know and simply don't realize it! It really is amazing what people will go through to oppose or defend something that when push comes to shove, both agree on and go ahead and LIVE OUT anyhow because when it comes down to it, a true believer lives like one, acts like one, and fulfills the commission to go and tell others and pray.
I'm afraid that dwelling on wording that can be read one way or another and can't be proven on its own one way or another isn't beneficial, and goes against what we are told a little further in the chapter:

Of these things put in remembrance, testifying earnestly before the Lord not to have disputes of words, profitable for nothing, to the subversion of the hearers.

In light of the above, I can't see the difference in those two phrases being an issue worthy of discussion, as they both say the same thing. Unless one gets to the heart of the matter and simply discusses the doctrine behind it instead, the discussion won't be profitable and in fact sounds silly. If I were a brand new believer on here, I think a lot of new believers are scared to death of studying their Bibles because so many things get turned into matters of much debate that should not.

Wow, that got long! So sorry, I'll work on brevity in the future.

 

[Jarthur001]

Gina,

Allow me to disagree on somethings.

J: Gina, what I asked was if we should say it like it is said in the Bible. Why is that not better?

Gina: The verse quoted is this (Darby Translation)

1 Thou therefore, my child, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be competent to instruct others also. 3 Take thy share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one going as a soldier entangles himself with the affairs of life, that he may please him who has enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And if also any one contend in the games, he is not crowned unless he contend lawfully. 6 The husbandman must labour before partaking of the fruits. 7 Think of what I say, for the Lord will give thee understanding in all things.

There are, quite frankly, two ways of looking at that. When you go to the army to enlist, they enlist you. First you go. That can very obviously be drawn from these verses. It says that the person went. "no one going..." Then it says he he was enlisted.

FIRST YOU GO..
Why do you go to enlist? Are you are drawn? You see the text does not say he goes to enlist(as we will see), nor does it say he was drawn. However if we add to the text as you just have done, we must consider all scripture for now we are into system theology and your "system" is beginning to show.

One may claim my system has been showing all along. OK..I'll give you that. But in this case the verse posted I only used as seen in the context, and have kept the meaning pure not needing to go beyond what the text says.

ONE ONE GOING..
I like the Darby Translation but hardly use it. You are building your system on the wrong meaning of the word strateuomai. strateuomai means a soldier that goes to war or to battle.

Luk 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

stratia (heavenly host) is the root of strateuomai. The angels are not going to enlist, but going as part of their duty as a servant of God if you will. Likewise, our text does not say we go to enlist, but we go to battle. Maybe even you could use the words "sent forth to war". Maybe the best place to see this is in James.

Jam 4:1 From whence [come] wars and fightings among you? [come they] not hence, [even] of your lusts that war in your members?

The second way of looking at it is this: he didn't go and enlist, he was already chosen, grateful to have been and wants to please the one who chose him. That can be obviously drawn from these phrases.

Yes. In fact this is just how the KJV translates it. (that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.) I like the KJV and I agree with how the translators saw it here, and...........this only makes my case stronger, however, in this case, though I agree with the meaning the translators of the KJV added some interpretation to the text here. They all (the KJV translators) were a bunch of Calvinist you know.

Having said that, I too interpret it as the KJV says..."chosen to be a soldier".

Gina: Let me get this right. You're saying that by using the phrase "God enlisted us as soldiers" rather than "I believe we all enlisted as soldiers when we got saved," it has changed you when you preach or share the news of Christ?

Indeed it has. Ok...not that one verse alone, but the whole idea found in scripture of God is the work of Salvation, not us.

You're a writer.

Yes...but a better eater of food then a writer.

I'm a writer.

I'm sorry. I feel your pain.

We both know that this is rather silly to pick over

.
yes. I only fixed a slip in words by another poster and based it on the Bible. This has lead to a full page of post where people disagree. Why so picky?

The phrase CAN be turned into a cal/arm debate, but why should it?

The tread was not meant for that debate, but being I'm a Calvinist and others are not, we will disagree on somethings. Some see man enlisting, and I see God as enlisting. Therefore we see the debate.

That topic can always be discussed in another thread where it was intended

.
If only people would not disagree with me, there would be no debate.

I agree with you.

Now we are getting somewhere.

It is God that saves. Is it through flowery words? Well, maybe. It is through Christ, who is the Word, and are we not indwelled at salvation, and it is the Word that speaks? The Word is both literal and figurative. The scripture is the Good News, and our mouths and lives (or hands, or letters) should manifest that, but back to my point...I think the scriptures can be QUITE flowery! It's not something to argue over and quite frankly, the cal/arm debate gets old and most often, when looked at honestly, is simply a matter of arguing over the way things are worded. I'd love to see Christians get over that. There is a real debate at the bottom of it that CAN effect how some people live their lives, so perhaps arguing the true points would be a good thing rather than arguing over how to word something if the discussion is to be fruitful. Makes me laugh sometimes to read the arguments like this...some of the most staunch opponents of Calvinism are the best Calvinists I know and simply don't realize it! It really is amazing what people will go through to oppose or defend something that when push comes to shove, both agree on and go ahead and LIVE OUT anyhow because when it comes down to it, a true believer lives like one, acts like one, and fulfills the commission to go and tell others and pray.
I'm afraid that dwelling on wording that can be read one way or another and can't be proven on its own one way or another isn't beneficial, and goes against what we are told a little further in the chapter:

ok.....well..
I'll skip this one. To much to write and I have to go to church.

In light of the above, I can't see the difference in those two phrases being an issue worthy of discussion, as they both say the same thing.

Then why debate? Why not just read what I posted and go on?

Unless one gets to the heart of the matter and simply discusses the doctrine behind it instead, the discussion won't be profitable and in fact sounds silly. If I were a brand new believer on here, I think a lot of new believers are scared to death of studying their Bibles because so many things get turned into matters of much debate that should not

.
If you use C or A for debate only and not see it's end as a need reach the world with the gospel then you are wasting your time with a foolish debate. Both systems should give us to share the good news. I feel one gives a much higher view of God. This is the one I hold to.

Wow, that got long! So sorry, I'll work on brevity in the future.

It is clear you have not read many of my post. I may hold the record in long post.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Aww, come JArthur, soldiers must both chose and be chosen. Otherwise you run the risk of having men who turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble because they aren't committed to cause.

(the term "men" is used loosely here to decribe the generic soldier)

I don't believe God impresses us into His army in the same way that the British impressed soldiers into theirs centuries ago. That would entail force and not the drawing that the Word specifically describes.

 

[Jarthur001]

Aww, come JArthur, soldiers must both chose and be chosen. Otherwise you run the risk of having men who turn tail and run at the first sign of trouble because they aren't committed to cause.

Yes I agree. But going by this passage and going by many other passages, who is it that choose 1st? A soldier is not a soldier going by this passage till Christ enlist him. Then the choice to serve Christ well, is up to the soldier.

As the passage says...

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of [this] life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

In other words...be a good soldier and not entangled with the world. Because good soldiers are out to please the one that chose him to be a soldier.

Plain as day. I'm not sure what you guys are fighting over.

(the term "men" is used loosely here to decribe the generic soldier)

OK. I rest my case.

I don't believe God impresses us into His army in the same way that the British impressed soldiers into theirs centuries ago.

You mean like a draft in war time? I have no idea how the Brits do it, but I know what the passage says and I happen to believe it. Do you?

That would entail force and not the drawing that the Word specifically describes.

I believe what it says "God chose is to be a soldier" but I don't see God forcing anyone, so this view does not entail force.

I happen to believe the Bible as it is, with no need to change the words, not ad to the text.