# Discussion with a Christian pacifist



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2007)

I am currently in a discussion (on another message board) with a self-described Christian pacifist. He takes the Yoder/Hauerwas approach. 

My current line of response is:

P1: In Romans 13 the civil magistrate is given divine backing (we can talk about instances where civil disobedience would be justifiable later).

P2: The civil magistrate is given the use of the sword.

C1:Therefore, the sword has divine backing (properly applied)

From that I would argue that violence is legitimate. Of course I can throw the usual theonomic bombs, but I am not in "shock mode" at the moment. If anyone is interested for the link, PM me since I don't want to turn this into a "board war."


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 6, 2007)

I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2007)

that's a good point. yeah, same board.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 6, 2007)

I mean after all, what is an army for? One could certainly point out inept armies throughout history but I don't know of any that were formed for the purpose of nonviolence.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 6, 2007)

I was in a Christian bookstore today and was flipping through _Christian Jihad_. Even the anabaptistic Caner brothers. go on record as supporting the current actions in Afghanistan and Iraq while of course many others from other viewpoints oppose the Iraq war. A discussion on when war is justifiable would be much more interesting to me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2007)

Arthur Holmes edited a book on Christian Readings on War. It looked good. I aw it in RTS bookstore.


----------



## non dignus (Jul 7, 2007)

I learned to be a pacifist very early on in my christian walk. The first leak in my perspective however, which eventually sank that ship, was the successful deployment of the Patriot anti-missile defense system used in the Persian Gulf war. These anti-missiles shot down larger long range missiles targeting civilians in Israel. 

Up to that time, I had believed that in no way could a Christian wear an army uniform since his allegiance was only to the Army of the Lord. *But the idea of manning a purely defensive missile system could not be impugned by any decent Christian*. That was the beginning of the end for my pacifism. I was also sort of angry that there wasn't better support in the Bible for my feelings of what Christianity should be!


----------



## Mathetes (Jul 7, 2007)

Steve Hays once touched on pacifism when dealing with some Anabaptist topics:



> But the modern-day denial of separatism also calls into question the remaining commitment to pacifism inasmuch as pacifism was embedded in separatism. The argument for pacifism was that the Christian didn’t have a vested interest in the world; as such, he didn’t fight for the state because the state represents an extension of the world. But if a modern Anabaptist now proclaims his stake in the world, then he has had gone over to the Constantinian side.
> 
> The remaining difference is then that the Pilgrim conquers Canaan with the Gospel of grace, whereas the new school Anabaptist conquers Canaan with the social gospel.
> 
> ...



http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/06/4-door-labyrinth-4.html


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jul 7, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.




That's true enough brother Chris but at the same time most of the Roman soldiers did not have a choice in the matter. They were slaves to the empire.
I am not anti military service but a christian had better count the cost before he joins up. I believe the law of God binds governments as well as individuals. If government officials lie in order to promote a war to steal other peoples lands and natural resourses they are guilty of murder, bearing false witness and covetousness for sure. in my opinion, the current war in Iraq is not a just war and I could in no way ever support it.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I am currently in a discussion (on another message board) with a self-described Christian pacifist. He takes the Yoder/Hauerwas approach.
> 
> My current line of response is:
> 
> ...



I would say that while your argument is true I am not sure where you find disciples of Christ given the sword or instructed to be a part of the civil magistrate. In fact I see Christ telling us to concern ourselves with the kingdom of God.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> I would add that Jesus and John the Baptizer did not tell the Roman soldiers they came into contact with to get out of the army. Assuming this is the board I think it is, I may log in myself and join the discussions.



There is a lot Jesus did not say, or at least that isn't written down. That's certainly not an argument you want to weigh too heavily. But the main point is understood. I think the focus should not be on what Christ did or did not say to Roman soldiers, but to his disciples. I think you would agree that actions change after the heart is first changed. And near as I can figure there is nothing instructed to his disciples that would leave me to believe Christ wanted us to have anything to do with the sword (and I mean _sword_ in the general sense of violence, military, etc.). Peace was his way, and that is all encompassing. The military exists, but who said Christians must or should be a part of that?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2007)

disciples of Christ aren't given the sword, that wasn't my argument. And I believe that disciples of Christ may serve in civil governments (see Luther's works on this matter). My point is that their are times when God himself authorizes and norms the use of the sword.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> disciples of Christ aren't given the sword, that wasn't my argument. And I believe that disciples of Christ may serve in civil governments (see Luther's works on this matter). My point is that their are times when God himself authorizes and norms the use of the sword.



My apologies if I have misunderstood what your intent in the argument was. What I was saying was that whether or not God authorizes the use of the sword, Christians should be separate from that. Were you not concerned with _Christians_ at this stage of your debate/discussion? Meaning, you weren't specifically discussing Christians at the time?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2007)

I specifically believe that Christians have the right and duty to serve in the civil magistracy and to carry out legitimate, just functions.


----------



## non dignus (Jul 7, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> My apologies if I have misunderstood what your intent in the argument was. What I was saying was that whether or not God authorizes the use of the sword, Christians should be separate from that. Were you not concerned with _Christians_ at this stage of your debate/discussion? Meaning, you weren't specifically discussing Christians at the time?



Hi Eddie,

Christians being separated from bearing the sword has implications that are distasteful to non-pacifists. When I was a pacifist I had to wrestle with the idea that other men had to 'carry my water'. We benefit greatly from the blood, sweat, and tears shed by soldiers. It dishonors the name of Christ to shirk our duty, and allow unbelievers to do our hard work. If just war be fought, than just men fight.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I specifically believe that Christians have the right and duty to serve in the civil magistracy and to carry out legitimate, just functions.



I agree in the US here Christians have the right to serve in the civil magistracy. But the duty? That's where I fail to see any support as far as Scripture is concerned. Is there some you can offer that I can review?

And speaking of this duty, does that transfer to any and all nations where a disciple of Christ happens to be living and serving the Lord? This duty would have to apply to a Christian in a Muslim nation with sharia (sp?) law in place, correct? For instance, we have close friends who live in a middle eastern country right now, one with a minuscule percentage of Christians residing there. You are saying it is their duty to serve in the civil magistracy there?

I'm saying that duty is a strong term. It's a term of obligation. That we disciples of Christ are obligated to serve in the civil magistracy. I cannot simply concede that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2007)

Christians are called to be salt and light. Daniel did his duty in a pagan culture and saw hsi biblical values given some weight (some time). 

But my original point is the fulcrum. If God has normed the sword (and violence) in some areas, then it stands that it is right for both Christian and non-Christian magistrates to use the sword. Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Hi Eddie,



Hello and thanks for the response. Let me try and understand what you are saying and attempt a reasonable and spirit-led response.



non dignus said:


> Christians being separated from bearing the sword has implications that are distasteful to non-pacifists.



First of all let me say that I wish the Church would follow Christ and not care one iota whether or not the world liked it. You have to live out your convictions, even with fellow Christians who hold some different beliefs. So to that I would say if Christ instructed us to lay down the sword and turn the other cheek and so forth, then we had best trust and obey.



non dignus said:


> When I was a pacifist I had to wrestle with the idea that other men had to 'carry my water'. We benefit greatly from the blood, sweat, and tears shed by soldiers.



We Christians in the US do benefit in a way from what others are doing. While there is great debate over whether military action in Iraq is doing anything to help us here, I understand the main point of your statement. Especially when you consider the violent activities it took to separate this nation from the control of Britain a couple hundred years ago.



non dignus said:


> It dishonors the name of Christ to shirk our duty, and allow unbelievers to do our hard work.



Again the word _duty_ comes up in this topic, but I am not sure where anyone finds this obligation in the way of Christ. Is there Scripture you can offer for me to review?

Our "hard work" has never been in the secular or civic realm. Shouldn't we be concerned with the way of the Lord, the peace of God, his kingdom, his gospel, helping those in need, aiding the poor, aiding widows, and so forth? 



non dignus said:


> If just war be fought, than just men fight.



I am a strict pacifist. Meaning I do not subscribe to the Just War Theory. I say that just to be clear on my position. But those who do subscribe to the Just War Theory I believe have the onus of showing that any war/conflict is in fact Just before giving it support.

In my ethics class a while back, we were discussing the different theories. When we came to the Just War Theory he asked the class how many followed this theory. Roughly 90% said they did, and that is after the lecture and discussion of what it is exactly. He then asked them, "Can you name me 3 wars that were actually Just?" The class came up with 0.

I thank you for the dialogue. It's refreshing to have these discussions with like-minded folks who will actually dialogue.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Christians are called to be salt and light. Daniel did his duty in a pagan culture and saw hsi biblical values given some weight (some time).
> 
> But my original point is the fulcrum. If God has normed the sword (and violence) in some areas, then it stands that it is right for both Christian and non-Christian magistrates to use the sword. Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.



What better way to be salt and light than to be a voice of reason, a beacon of peace and to not be associated with killing others?

But on the fulcrum, I would ask you why there would be any Christian magistrates, especially if you are speaking of a case of a Republic like the US? Why should a Christian involve themselves in such endeavors? I do not believe there is any such duty or obligation for a Christian to do so. Do you have any Scriptural support that I can take a look at?

I will take a look at the Daniel example you gave, but I am thinking more of instructions or prescriptions or guidance given now that we are under grace. I mean, you have to admit that things are a little different now than in the _Old Testament_ times, right?


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Otherwise you would be saying that God has two different standards of morality that contradict one another.



Oh, forgot to say something about that in particular. I actually do believe Christ holds his disciples to a different standard than he does the world. Remember that one group trusts and obeys him. The other doesn't. We are not of this world. We are merely pilgrims.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> What better way to be salt and light than to be a voice of reason, a beacon of peace and to not be associated with killing others?
> 
> But on the fulcrum, I would ask you why there would be any Christian magistrates, especially if you are speaking of a case of a Republic like the US? Why should a Christian involve themselves in such endeavors? I do not believe there is any such duty or obligation for a Christian to do so. Do you have any Scriptural support that I can take a look at?



God requires just laws (does God approve of sinful things?). It is true that unbelievers, acting inconsistently, can pass just laws, but that is not the norm. Christians, having the benefit of God's special revelation, can understand the world rightly. 




> I will take a look at the Daniel example you gave, but I am thinking more of instructions or prescriptions or guidance given now that we are under grace. I mean, you have to admit that things are a little different now than in the _Old Testament_ times, right?



Things might be different, true, but God hasn't changed his morality. Anyway, I reject a dispensational hermeneutics.



> Oh, forgot to say something about that in particular. I actually do believe Christ holds his disciples to a different standard than he does the world. Remember that one group trusts and obeys him. The other doesn't. We are not of this world. We are merely pilgrims.



Are you saying that Christ approves of two different ethical standards? If so, this is ethical relativism with a vengeance.


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> God requires just laws (does God approve of sinful things?). It is true that unbelievers, acting inconsistently, can pass just laws, but that is not the norm. Christians, having the benefit of God's special revelation, can understand the world rightly.



God deals with the state. God handles who is in control of nations. That's his will and his work.



Draught Horse said:


> Things might be different, true, but God hasn't changed his morality. Anyway, I reject a dispensational hermeneutics.



I actually don't like dispensationalism and quite reject it also. Sorry if you got that impression. And God himself has not changed his morality, no. But he has changed what he wants his people to do: no more sacrifices, for example. Why? All because of Christ. God in the Old Testament era sanctioned the idea of eye for an eye, as Christ talked about. But with Christ we have "turn the other cheek."



Draught Horse said:


> Are you saying that Christ approves of two different ethical standards? If so, this is ethical relativism with a vengeance.



Let me be clear. Not two ethical standards. Nothing should matter to the Christian except what Christ expects of him or her. We are to trust and obey him. We Christians are not of this world. God may have the same morals, but why are the people of the world judged? Because of evils they do to other people? Because of lies? Because of adultery? Or because of that which is more foundational?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 7, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> God deals with the state. God handles who is in control of nations. That's his will and his work.
> 
> I actually don't like dispensationalism and quite reject it also. Sorry if you got that impression. And God himself has not changed his morality, no. But he has changed what he wants his people to do: no more sacrifices, for example. Why? All because of Christ. God in the Old Testament era sanctioned the idea of eye for an eye, as Christ talked about. But with Christ we have "turn the other cheek."
> 
> Let me be clear. Not two ethical standards. Nothing should matter to the Christian except what Christ expects of him or her. We are to trust and obey him. We Christians are not of this world. God may have the same morals, but why are the people of the world judged? Because of evils they do to other people? Because of lies? Because of adultery? Or because of that which is more foundational?



I wonder if you'd consider Genesis 9:6 to still apply? "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

If it does, who else but a believing magistrate is in the best position to carry out this command? For if the magistrate were unbelieving, he could consider himself free to disobey it.


----------



## non dignus (Jul 7, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> .....First of all let me say that I wish the Church would follow Christ and not care one iota whether or not the world liked it. You have to live out your convictions, even with fellow Christians who hold some different beliefs.


I agree completely.


> ....So to that I would say if Christ instructed us to lay down the sword and turn the other cheek and so forth, then we had best trust and obey....



Christ also told us to buy a sword, and He did not always turn the other cheek. One cannot take these commands and extrapolate them too far. Jesus certainly doesn't advocate antinomianism. 

Our relationship to the 'sword' has changed because we are in a different covenant now. The old way was to kill our enemies because they were on 'our land', it was that kind of covenant. Now, as strangers and pilgrims we are to love our enemies, partly because we are on 'their land'. 

The church now conquers through the gospel. I sound like a pacifist, Right? Peace is good and right, and we are peacemakers. We make peace through proclaming law and gospel. But there is another God-ordained sphere of influence. Romans 13 ordains magistrates as ministers of law, and Christians must influence magistrates. Peace must be _enforced _sometimes. It only sounds counter-intuitive if you're feeling it rather than thinking it. Trust me, I know. I was looking at the world as a pie cut into two parts: Good and Evil. When I became Reformed I saw that the pie was actually all good with a tiny speck of evil, which is mankind in Adam.


> ....Again the word _duty_ comes up in this topic, but I am not sure where anyone finds this obligation in the way of Christ. Is there Scripture you can offer for me to review?


Yes, of course. "Love your neighbor as yourself."


> Our "hard work" has never been in the secular or civic realm. Shouldn't we be concerned with the way of the Lord, the peace of God, his kingdom, his gospel, helping those in need, aiding the poor, aiding widows, and so forth?


Helping those in need includes defending the weak against the wicked. 


> ......I am a strict pacifist. Meaning I do not subscribe to the Just War Theory. I say that just to be clear on my position. But those who do subscribe to the Just War Theory I believe have the onus of showing that any war/conflict is in fact Just before giving it support......He then asked them, "Can you name me 3 wars that were actually Just?" The class came up with 0.


 Right, that is a whole 'nother discussion! The curse from Adam really messed things up and no one is 100% faultless. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as an ethically just war.


> I thank you for the dialogue. It's refreshing to have these discussions with like-minded folks who will actually dialogue.



Thank you, I would very much like to_ shake this out._


----------



## non dignus (Jul 7, 2007)

Eddie,
You mentioned 'strict pacifist'. How strict are you? 

1. Would you enlist as a medic? 

2. Would you maintain a defense-only anti-missile system here at home? 

3. Would you shoot a sniper who was killing children at the local school yard?


----------



## martyrologist (Jul 7, 2007)

I am not skipping the other posts, just dealing with these questions first. I will later delve into the previous ones.

These are very thought provoking questions.



non dignus said:


> Eddie,
> You mentioned 'strict pacifist'. How strict are you?
> 
> 1. Would you enlist as a medic?



No, I would not _enlist_.



non dignus said:


> 2. Would you maintain a defense-only anti-missile system here at home?



No. Not my place to be involved. 



non dignus said:


> 3. Would you shoot a sniper who was killing children at the local school yard?



I'd be shocked if you ever actually found me with a gun...except if I was taking one out of one of my kid's hands. They're all under 4 years old. But no I would not shoot the sniper. Not because I don't care for the children. I would actually (and I can only say this hypothetically and hope I would do this) go to the children and help as many as I could however I could.

I believe in advocacy. Helping those in need and loving our enemies. Being a voice for those without one, I guess.

I'm not worried about those sorts of things. I am at a place where I just have to trust the will of the Lord. You could have asked about someone holding my wife and kids hostage, and telling me that I had to choose one or the other to possibly die. Would you make a choice either way? Or would you not participate in evil and trust in God's will? We don't know what will happen or what God will do. Why not just trust and obey?


----------



## non dignus (Jul 7, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> ....no I would not shoot the sniper. Not because I don't care for the children. I would actually (and I can only say this hypothetically and hope I would do this) go to the children and help as many as I could however I could....



I want to challenge you a little more. Let's say the man is sniping at kids from the water tower which is not close to any houses. He's killed four already and he's got nineteen pinned down. You're right there on your lunch break and you notice a big truck is sitting nearby with the engine idling. You could ram that truck into two legs of that water tower knocking it down but the sniper would probably die from the destruction of the water tower.

Would you do it? If not, why not?


----------



## x.spasitel (Jul 8, 2007)

I don't consider myself a pacifist, but rather a peaceful man. In other words, go not hastily to war, nor for reasons unjust or selfish. There is a time for war, and a time for peace, and our times for war must be very carefully thought through. There is no glory in being a bullying policeman, nor honour in provoking hatred and aggression in others. Conflicts should always be resolved in ways that would bring an end to as few lives as possible, for war is a terrible thing. Yet if the time comes to bear the sword, and the war is God's, I will bear that sword - against my own government, if necessary. 

(A note: I do not consider the Current American Conflict to be a justified war.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 8, 2007)

x.spasitel said:


> I don't consider myself a pacifist, but rather a peaceful man. In other words, go not hastily to war, nor for reasons unjust or selfish. There is a time for war, and a time for peace, and our times for war must be very carefully thought through. There is no glory in being a bullying policeman, nor honour in provoking hatred and aggression in others. Conflicts should always be resolved in ways that would bring an end to as few lives as possible, for war is a terrible thing. Yet if the time comes to bear the sword, and the war is God's, I will bear that sword - against my own government, if necessary.
> 
> (A note: I do not consider the Current American Conflict to be a justified war.)


----------



## Davidius (Jul 8, 2007)

When Peter drew his sword and cut off Malchus' ear, Jesus didn't say "no Peter, don't do that because violence is wrong." He quoted the passage from the Old Testament that those who kill with the sword shall die by the sword (this being after he had given the command to turn the other cheek). Had Peter killed Malchus, he would have been justly deserving of execution by the civil authorities and Jesus acknowledged this. It's apparent that the entities of "individual" and "state" have different regulations governing them. And all of this squares perfectly with Paul's teaching in Romans 13. It might be too difficult to sort that out for some who wish the bible were just a little easier, a little more black & white in some areas, but that's just the way it is.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jul 8, 2007)

I have several Anabaptist friends (influenced by Yoder and Hauerwas) who are pacifist and have spent many long hours listening to them about their views. Often what I've found driving them is their past experience of having been abused as children or some other such horrendous suffering they've undergone. 

Hence, I've found it important to listen to their stories before attempting to "set them straight" because the emotional issues are so deep.

However, I've never been convinced of the pacifist position. The best book two books I've read on the topic are:

Oliver O'Donovan, _The Just War Revisted_ (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

J. D. Charles, _Between Pacificism and Jihad_ (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2005).

Moreover, I've also discovered that Romans 13 must be read in the context of the whole sweep of Scripture. I have been tremendously helped in this regard by the full scale political theology of O'Donovan found in:

Oliver O'Donovan, _The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the roots of political theology_ (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

Oliver O'Donovan, _The Ways of judgment_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).

The major problem with O'Donovan is that he is very difficult to read. He packs many pages into a single paragraph. But his grasp of the Christian political tradition is unrivaled.

God bless.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jul 8, 2007)

x.spasitel said:


> I don't consider myself a pacifist, but rather a peaceful man. In other words, go not hastily to war, nor for reasons unjust or selfish. There is a time for war, and a time for peace, and our times for war must be very carefully thought through. There is no glory in being a bullying policeman, nor honour in provoking hatred and aggression in others. Conflicts should always be resolved in ways that would bring an end to as few lives as possible, for war is a terrible thing. Yet if the time comes to bear the sword, and the war is God's, I will bear that sword - against my own government, if necessary.
> 
> (A note: I do not consider the Current American Conflict to be a justified war.)


----------



## non dignus (Jul 8, 2007)

Eddie,

OK. Now the sniper has killed two more little children. Unfortunately the owner of the truck had presence of mind to lock the doors while he left the engine running, but suddenly he comes running up with his rifle and shouts, 
"Can you see him?!" 
You say, yes, you can see him. 
He says, "Here! Use my rifle! I can't see because I haven't got my glasses!" 

*Would you use the rifle to try and disable the killer by shooting at his hands, arms or weapon?*

The fact of American civic life is that the people are the main part of law enforcment. What I mean is that if we don't act in our role as citizens, crime will prevail. 

Example: My car breaks down. I fix my car. How? I get a mechanic and pay him to fix it. Who is really fixing the car, me or my mechanic? Me, because I am commissioning him to do it for payment.

Example: I need a house, so I will build a house. I hire an architect, general contractor, and lawyer. Who is building the house? Me. I am building it with the assistance of professionals. They are not building it. I am.

The same is true with law enforcement. 

When there is a crime, we stop the criminal. How? We call for professional assistance. In the mean time we do what we can to further the process; even using 'citizen's arrest'. Who is stopping crime? We are. We stop crime by utilizing help from professionals. Police only offer assistance to our primary role. We are the main part of law enforcement.

Los Angeles had the Rodney King riots a few years back. After a couple days it devolved into widespread civil disobedience in the form of looting. The police force was powerless because they were simply outnumbered by *people who were not enforcing law. *

The magistrate, ordained by God, needs our eyes and hearts to detect criminals and report them, and if need be apprehend or kill them. It is not vigilantism to kill in self defense or in defense of others. The water tower sniper scenario is all too real in this day and age. 

My friend, being 'gentle as doves' doesn't cancel out being 'wise as serpents'.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 8, 2007)

"I actually don't like dispensationalism and quite reject it also. Sorry if you got that impression. And God himself has not changed his morality, no. But he has changed what he wants his people to do: no more sacrifices, for example. Why? All because of Christ. God in the Old Testament era sanctioned the idea of eye for an eye, as Christ talked about. But with Christ we have "*turn the other cheek.""*

Eddie, that is execcedly poor exegesis. Take another hearty *indepth* (not superficial) look at that dispensational hermeneutic your are purporting. That passage is not dealing with what you are speaking about.

If you ask me "if not that, then waht?" I'll reiterate - take another hearty indepth (not superficial) look at that poor exegesis and dispensational hermeneutic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2007)

non dignus said:


> Eddie,
> 
> OK. Now the sniper has killed two more little children. Unfortunately the owner of the truck had presence of mind to lock the doors while he left the engine running, but suddenly he comes running up with his rifle and shouts,
> "Can you see him?!"
> ...



No David, you have it all wrong. Christian love demands that we all be selfish and concern ourselves only with "spiritual things". Let the pagans stop all the mean people. Our job is to be nice to the mean people. Let the pagans die for us that we might live in a peaceful society.


----------



## non dignus (Jul 9, 2007)

Semper Fi


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> No David, you have it all wrong. Christian love demands that we all be selfish and concern ourselves only with "spiritual things". Let the pagans stop all the mean people. Our job is to be nice to the mean people. Let the pagans die for us that we might live in a peaceful society.



I know of a anabaptistic preacher who very nearly takes that view (especially WRT to a Christian serving as a magistrate) although he doesn't state it quite as clearly as above.


----------



## SemperWife (Jul 10, 2007)

martyrologist said:


> I'm not worried about those sorts of things. I am at a place where I just have to trust the will of the Lord. You could have asked about someone holding my wife and kids hostage, and telling me that I had to choose one or the other to possibly die. Would you make a choice either way? Or would you not participate in evil and trust in God's will? We don't know what will happen or what God will do. Why not just trust and obey?



Hypotheticals are all too easy argue. So long as no one ever really has to be in a situation, it is easy to talk about all the things one will/will not do. It doesn't really mean anything, because after all, it isn't real.

We have been speaking hypothetically here and indirectly with regard to victims. I have a real actual scenario with direct regard to the victim. I had an unfortunate experience in college, where a man I knew went off the deep end. Long story short, he kidnapped me with the intent of raping me. I prayed. I spoke calmly and gently to him asking him to stop his vehicle as we were driving. I spoke more sternly to him. I cried. I begged and pleaded. Nothing worked. He threatened to use chemicals that would make me unconcious. He threatened my life with a rather large knife. When we arrived at the location where he wanted to rape me, I took the first opportunity I had to run. I pleaded for the people that I saw in front of the building to help but received none (perhaps they thought they would be participating in evil) and he caught up with me. He forced me back to his car to try and leave. I kicked, screamed and fought the whole way. Once again, I managed to escape. This time he caught up with me faster and put his hands around my throat choking me, trying to pull me up as I had fallen to the ground. He made more threats about bodily harm. I kicked and fought as much as I could. Thankfully, a security guard from the building yelled from a distance and started moving toward him with a weapon. The guard scared this wayward man and he ran off.

I shared all this not to boast of my escape, but to ask a few questions. What is your view on self defense? If it is acceptable, then how do you distinguish how far one can go? If it is not acceptable, then was my self defense in this situation "participating in evil?" Should I have just done exactly what he said and allowed him to rape me? 

With regard to the other parties involved:
Should the security guard (I believe he was a Christian) have let the situation go on, assuming "I guess this is God's will or I will just "trust and obey" that God will take care of this. Were the people I begged or pleaded with to help obligated in any way to assist me? While their inaction could have been an act of loving their enemies, was it an act of love for me? How do you balance loving your enemies and loving your neighbors? Could inaction ever be considered a "sin of ommission?"

I find it interesting that so much of the focus is on loving ones enemy in these scenarios. I don't have a problem with the that as God commands us to do so. I bear no ill will towards this man described above. I forgave him and even feel much pity for his soul. I also bear no ill will toward the people who did not help me. However, I wish there was equal focus on how we can better love our neighbor.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 10, 2007)

SemperWife said:


> Hypotheticals are all too easy argue. So long as no one ever really has to be in a situation, it is easy to talk about all the things one will/will not do. It doesn't really mean anything, because after all, it isn't real.
> 
> We have been speaking hypothetically here and indirectly with regard to victims. I have a real actual scenario with direct regard to the victim. I had an unfortunate experience in college, where a man I knew went off the deep end. Long story short, he kidnapped me with the intent of raping me. I prayed. I spoke calmly and gently to him asking him to stop his vehicle as we were driving. I spoke more sternly to him. I cried. I begged and pleaded. Nothing worked. He threatened to use chemicals that would make me unconcious. He threatened my life with a rather large knife. When we arrived at the location where he wanted to rape me, I took the first opportunity I had to run. I pleaded for the people that I saw in front of the building to help but received none (perhaps they thought they would be participating in evil) and he caught up with me. He forced me back to his car to try and leave. I kicked, screamed and fought the whole way. Once again, I managed to escape. This time he caught up with me faster and put his hands around my throat choking me, trying to pull me up as I had fallen to the ground. He made more threats about bodily harm. I kicked and fought as much as I could. Thankfully, a security guard from the building yelled from a distance and started moving toward him with a weapon. The guard scared this wayward man and he ran off.
> 
> ...



Mrs. L., for me it is not even a close call. Force of any kind, including lethal force, was justified to stop the man. What a horrible experience. Praise God you were spared. You did the proper thing. Cry out, flee, and when trapped, fight back. 

You are right, loving your neighbor, and even your enemy, fully supports the principle of active and forceful intervention when harm is being done in one's presence.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 11, 2007)

I am so glad that God spared you from the worst. Way to go, fighting to the end. I think your story perfectly demonstrates the issue under discussion. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2007)

Sonya,

Great post. Your husband is very fortunate to be married to such a smart woman. What a Proverbs 31 gal!

Sonya asked me what I thought of the post before she sent it. Initially I was hesitant to have her throw pearls before swine but then realized how well put this was. I completely agree with Traci that it perfectly sums up the issue.

Let me just state this as clearly as I can. I believe the attitude about "...I'll just trust God..." when we have the means within us to stop the harm of another human being is not only not Reformed, it is *sub-Christian*. In the Epistles, Paul calls men that don't provide for their familes worse than pagans. He says that such men deny the faith. I believe, emphatically, that a man who will not fight to protect the innocent or to preserve life when he has the opportunity is, likewise, worse than a pagan.

In fact, I believe it is Luther that wisely observed that each of the Commandments not only forbids the thing it prohibits but _requires_ the very opposite to be upheld and performed. This is why the whole Law can be summed up in loving God and loving our neighbor. We are not only prohibited from committing murder but we are commanded _positively_ to uphold life, to cherish it. We are not only commanded to not steal but we are commanded _positively_ to respect another man's property. The prohibition implies the obvious that the motivation for the prohibition is that we are supposed to be about its opposite. Thus, I believe that the love of Christ is not in a man that has not the desire to spend himself on the protection of the innocent.

I don't even have to think about what I would do if a man came into my home. He would have to get over my dead body to get at my wife or children. That's what men do! All pious sounding stuff about God's will is so contrary to the REVEALED will of God about our responsibilities to our families and to our neighbors that I have absolutely no patience for a man that claims Christ to believe he has the first clue about what God's will is. Want to know what God's will is? Read your Bible!

Man, this hit a nerve but I am sick and tired of laziness, apathy, and cowardice in men being dressed up in pseudo-pious talk about "...trusting God's will." I don't have a problem with the discussion about Just Wars and the like but the man who is a complete pacifist as the Anabaptists (i.e. Amish and Mennonites) or JW's are, is worthy of derision. I don't care what he thinks his conscience tells him. He is out of accord with the Word of God.

-BREAK-

Now to brag on Sonya a bit.

This incident occurred right after I met Sonya. She's 6 years younger than me and I met her over her Christmas break in Monterey and we were mutually smitten. I was very thankful God preserved her and she is very strong emotionally so it didn't shatter her. Shortly thereafter, she started taking some self-defense courses. It's a self-defense course called RAD - Rape Aggression Defense. I prefer to call it "gouge the eyes and kick his groin with all your strength" as that is how all the moves end when I watched it on video. Sonya was really good at it. She is 5'9" and very strong.

We were married about 1.5 years later. When we moved to VA, Sonya went to work at a Sexualt Assault Victim Advocacy Service (SAVAS). She mentioned the program as something they could start teaching to some women so she and a few others drove to the training center in VA and received the training. They train both men and women instructors.

One of the graduating exercises is that the instructor has to take on assailants and fight them off. The assailants are in "Michelin Man" suits because the moves described above would nigh kill a man if they were not. The RAD training center was really impressed with Sonya. Normally they only put one or two assailants on the female trainers due to their strength. Unbeknownst to Sonya (except after when they told her), they knew that wouldn't be enough and had 4-5 attacking her at once. She was a groin-kicking phenom! I was so proud of her!


----------



## Augusta (Jul 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> She was a groin-kicking phenom! I was so proud of her!


----------



## SemperWife (Jul 11, 2007)

> Mrs. L., for me it is not even a close call. Force of any kind, including lethal force, was justified to stop the man. What a horrible experience. Praise God you were spared. You did the proper thing. Cry out, flee, and when trapped, fight back.
> 
> You are right, loving your neighbor, and even your enemy, fully supports the principle of active and forceful intervention when harm is being done in one's presence.





> I am so glad that God spared you from the worst. Way to go, fighting to the end. I think your story perfectly demonstrates the issue under discussion. Thanks for sharing it.



Thank you for the kind words! I did hesitate to share it, but thought some fruit could come of it. 

It has been 13 years since the experience. In case any wonder about the outcome, he turned himself in, the case went to court and he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and a weapons violation. I think he was sentenced to 5-6 years and served maybe 2-3 years. I don't know what happened to him after that. 

On a side note, a few weeks before the incident happened I shared the Gospel with him and he seemed genuinely interested. I don't know how real that was. Only God does. For his sake, I hope some seeds were planted even then and that his incarceration aided in bring him closer to the Lord. I pray for his salvation periodically.

On another note...


> Your husband is very fortunate to be married to such a smart woman. What a Proverbs 31 gal!
> 
> She was a groin-kicking phenom! I was so proud of her!



I love you very much, Rich!

I am honored and blessed to have such a loving encouraging husband...a little embarassed about such praise, but honored and blessed nonetheless.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2007)

Excuse me Ma'am but there will be no Public Displays of Affection (PDA) on this board. Please save all that mushy stuff for home.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 11, 2007)

SemperWife said:


> I love you very much, Rich!
> 
> I am honored and blessed to have such a loving encouraging husband...a little embarassed about such praise, but honored and blessed nonetheless.





SemperFideles said:


> Excuse me Ma'am but there will be no Public Displays of Affection (PDA) on this board. Please save all that mushy stuff for home.


 Y'all two knock it off. You would think you were married or something.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Sonya,
> I don't even have to think about what I would do if a man came into my home. He would have to get over my dead body to get at my wife or children. That's what men do! All pious sounding stuff about God's will is so contrary to the REVEALED will of God about our responsibilities to our families and to our neighbors that I have absolutely no patience for a man that claims Christ to believe he has the first clue about what God's will is. Want to know what God's will is? Read your Bible!
> 
> Man, this hit a nerve but I am sick and tired of laziness, apathy, and cowardice in men being dressed up in pseudo-pious talk about "...trusting God's will." I don't have a problem with the discussion about Just Wars and the like but the man who is a complete pacifist as the Anabaptists (i.e. Amish and Mennonites) or JW's are, is worthy of derision. I don't care what he thinks his conscience tells him. He is out of accord with the Word of God.



I am not settled in my views on this subject. I have long lived in the realm that you come from...somebody tries to touch my family or anyone close to me and I wouldn't think twice about beating the bloody pulp out of 'em. And I think that I am still at the point (whether it's right or wrong) that I would do that, because it's natural to me and I can't imagine doing otherwise.

However, with study that I have done on this subject, and the deep wrestlings I have gone through in my heart in thinking about it and the Bible's teaching, here are a couple of things I would want to add regarding your post.

You seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so out of ignorance of the Bible or ignoring what it DIRECTLY teaches. I do not think that can be supported. The few people that I know who have come to that position have only come to it after deep wrestling with the Scriptures, fighting against their own natural inclinations. They have not come to it easily. Certainly not in ignorance of the Bible's teaching. Perhaps their understanding of Scripture is lacking, perhaps not. And my own journey towards sympathy with a more pacifist understanding of Scripture has been difficult. And it is not finished, and I do not know where it will lead me.

You also seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so purely because they have succombed to "laziness, apathy, and cowardice." I would humbly suggest that such a statement is false. Perhaps it is in some. I do not doubt it. But those that I know who are going towards a more pacifist position do so ONLY from a commitment to what they believe Jesus wants from them. Further, you seem to suggest that pacifists do not believe in doing anything when evil threatens them and theirs. That is not the case. They are opposed to taking violent measures. David Augsburger says in "Dissident Discipleship" something to the effect of that he is willing to die for his family but not kill for them. Again, I am not there yet, but I can understand why he is at that point. And I don't think it's because he is a coward. If someone did threaten his family, I am sure he would not just stand there and let them do whatever, but he would attempt everything outside of violence. Which may to you seem like nothing, but he believes he would be following the teachings of Jesus. 

I know that many would probably be guilty of what you charge. But that is not always the case. There are some faithful, godly, manly, courageous men who yet would not use violence for any reason in accordance with their understanding of Scripture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> You seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so out of ignorance of the Bible or ignoring what it DIRECTLY teaches. I do not think that can be supported.


Yes. It can.


> The few people that I know who have come to that position have only come to it after deep wrestling with the Scriptures, fighting against their own natural inclinations. They have not come to it easily. Certainly not in ignorance of the Bible's teaching. Perhaps their understanding of Scripture is lacking, perhaps not. And my own journey towards sympathy with a more pacifist understanding of Scripture has been difficult. And it is not finished, and I do not know where it will lead me.


I'm not saying people haven't studied the Scriptures who come to that conclusion. I'm saying that those who come to that conclusion are, yet, IGNORANT of the Scriptures true teaching on the subject.



> You also seem to suggest that all who take a pacifist position do so purely because they have succombed to "laziness, apathy, and cowardice." I would humbly suggest that such a statement is false. Perhaps it is in some. I do not doubt it. But those that I know who are going towards a more pacifist position do so ONLY from a commitment to what they believe Jesus wants from them. Further, you seem to suggest that pacifists do not believe in doing anything when evil threatens them and theirs. That is not the case. They are opposed to taking violent measures. David Augsburger says in "Dissident Discipleship" something to the effect of that he is willing to die for his family but not kill for them. Again, I am not there yet, but I can understand why he is at that point. And I don't think it's because he is a coward. If someone did threaten his family, I am sure he would not just stand there and let them do whatever, but he would attempt everything outside of violence. Which may to you seem like nothing, but he believes he would be following the teachings of Jesus.


A Jehovah's Witness believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. A Mormon believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. On a verse by verse study of the Scriptures there are men who far outstrip any of us here on the Puritanboard that hold to damnable heresies. Pacifism may not be damnable but it is, yet, a sub-Christian view of our resposiblities before God. Also, I still maintain that those who piously maintain something contrary to the Word are, in fact, _impious_. It matters not in the least to me that they are sincere in this belief or that they would die for this aberrant belief. It is impious. Full stop.



> I know that many would probably be guilty of what you charge. But that is not always the case. There are some faithful, godly, manly, courageous men who yet would not use violence for any reason in accordance with their understanding of Scripture.



What I would take out of the above statement is godly, manly, and courageous. You can keep faithful above as long as you don't try to state that they are being faithful to the Scriptures. They can be faithful to their aberrant views but they are not being faithful to Christ. My Confessional view does not permit me to sacrifice meaning for the sake of post-Modernism. As for the words godly, manly, and courageous, I don't allow that such man are any of those. They are fools.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 12, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Yes. It can.
> 
> I'm not saying people haven't studied the Scriptures who come to that conclusion. I'm saying that those who come to that conclusion are, yet, IGNORANT of the Scriptures true teaching on the subject.



Well, and they would say the same thing of you. I want to be very careful, but I shudder to make such claims. Not that I have no beliefs. I do have convictions. I believe I am correct in my understanding of many theological issues. But I am very open to the possibility that I might be mistaken. And I hope that my understanding improves. Are Christians no longer allowed to disagree on theological issues? 



> A Jehovah's Witness believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. A Mormon believes he is following the teachings of Jesus. On a verse by verse study of the Scriptures there are men who far outstrip any of us here on the Puritanboard that hold to damnable heresies. Pacifism may not be damnable but it is, yet, a sub-Christian view of our resposiblities before God. Also, I still maintain that those who piously maintain something contrary to the Word are, in fact, _impious_. It matters not in the least to me that they are sincere in this belief or that they would die for this aberrant belief. It is impious. Full stop.



Again, I don't disagree in principle. Some are wrong about their theological positions. Others are right. But I would not agree that this is a *clear* teaching of Scripture. Therefore, some allowance should be made for differences.



> What I would take out of the above statement is godly, manly, and courageous. You can keep faithful above as long as you don't try to state that they are being faithful to the Scriptures. They can be faithful to their aberrant views but they are not being faithful to Christ. My Confessional view does not permit me to sacrifice meaning for the sake of post-Modernism. As for the words godly, manly, and courageous, I don't allow that such man are any of those. They are fools.



Wow...that is all I can say to that. So someone who is a pacifist, and says to someone who is about to kill his child, "Take me instead, kill me" is not godly, manly, or courageous? Simply because he believes Jesus does not condone killing makes him a spineless coward? Somehow I don't think that Christian charity allows for calling them fools. Surely to be a martyr takes courage. But because he won't be violent himself he's a fool and a coward? How can you back that up?


----------



## x.spasitel (Jul 12, 2007)

SemperWife said:


> I pleaded for the people that I saw in front of the building to help but received none (perhaps they thought they would be participating in evil)



This is actually a well-documented psychological occurrence known as the "bystander effect". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 12, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> Well, and they would say the same thing of you. I want to be very careful, but I shudder to make such claims. Not that I have no beliefs. I do have convictions. I believe I am correct in my understanding of many theological issues. But I am very open to the possibility that I might be mistaken. And I hope that my understanding improves. Are Christians no longer allowed to disagree on theological issues?


They're entitle to disagree with the Truth but not have the Truth. I'm sorry Joel but you sound like Oprah Winfrey with your appel to "different understandings". There are plenty of boards where people treat the Scriptures like "...what does that mean to you..." but this isn't one of them. We are a Confessional board here. What Church upholds pacifism that you can point to?



> Again, I don't disagree in principle. Some are wrong about their theological positions. Others are right. But I would not agree that this is a *clear* teaching of Scripture. Therefore, some allowance should be made for differences.


It is not at all unclear.



> Wow...that is all I can say to that. So someone who is a pacifist, and says to someone who is about to kill his child, "Take me instead, kill me" is not godly, manly, or courageous? Simply because he believes Jesus does not condone killing makes him a spineless coward? Somehow I don't think that Christian charity allows for calling them fools. Surely to be a martyr takes courage. But because he won't be violent himself he's a fool and a coward? How can you back that up?


On the basis of the Scriptural principle that life is to be defended even as it is commanded not to be taken violently. Men who hate the things that God loves and love the things that God hates need to repent when they are confronted with these principles. Pacifists stand apart from every decent Confession of the Church and arrogate to themselves interpretive authority and then twist the Scriptures on this point. Roman Catholics, on the basis of natural theology, call the death penalty and evil punishment and, by doing so, impugn the character of an immutable God. It's in the habit of cults and sects to do things to the Word of God and I'll never be a party to being a soothing affirmer to wicked men.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 13, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> They're entitle to disagree with the Truth but not have the Truth. I'm sorry Joel but you sound like Oprah Winfrey with your appel to "different understandings". There are plenty of boards where people treat the Scriptures like "...what does that mean to you..." but this isn't one of them. We are a Confessional board here. What Church upholds pacifism that you can point to?



So we can never have different understandings about anything? So because I believe in infant baptism not credobaptism (only) does that mean I should just say everyone who doesn't agree with me (and of course therefore Scripture--without any humility that my fallible understanding may be limited) is foolish? I should just tell that they are ignorant of Scripture's teaching, are foolish, are impious and should correct their silly ways? Wow. I'm just not prepared to be that dogmatic. Don't get me wrong. There are some things I'll die for. There are some things I don't think we can have a "different understanding" of. Salvation is by faith alone e.g. But to all the specifics of the Confession? No, not willing to say that. And I'm not willing to say that everyone who disagrees with the confession is a fool. I might think they are wrong, and will discuss the issues with them and explain why I believe I am right. But to just say, "You're ignorant and foolish"? Somehow I don't think that is right. I hold ot the confession, but doesn't mean that I am committed to all the points to the point of death. And I would take exception at some points.



> It is not at all unclear.



To you.



> On the basis of the Scriptural principle that life is to be defended even as it is commanded not to be taken violently. Men who hate the things that God loves and love the things that God hates need to repent when they are confronted with these principles. Pacifists stand apart from every decent Confession of the Church and arrogate to themselves interpretive authority and then twist the Scriptures on this point. Roman Catholics, on the basis of natural theology, call the death penalty and evil punishment and, by doing so, impugn the character of an immutable God. It's in the habit of cults and sects to do things to the Word of God and I'll never be a party to being a soothing affirmer to wicked men.



Where is that principle? "even as it is commanded not to be taken violently." Is that not what one would be doing? Again, I'm not committed to the pacifist position, but I do see where they are coming from. I have just read through much of the literature of the early church, and they were largely pacifist. 

I think I'm done with this discussion. All you are saying is, "I'm right. They're wrong and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

That's just not where I am at. I find Scripture encouraging us to a deep humility. Not an arrogant attitude that just labels everyone who disagrees "foolish."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 13, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> There are some things I don't think we can have a "different understanding" of. Salvation is by faith alone e.g. But to all the specifics of the Confession? No, not willing to say that.


Thank you for clarifying precisely what I was demonstrating. What is clear in the Scriptures and can be required of a Confessional believer is defined by you. Ironic that you don't find this arrogant. Of course, by what standard you would then say that justification by faith is clear is beyond me - except I suppose by consensus or that you approve that it is a Confessional requirement. But perhaps I should heed the pagan that contacted me recently wondering why we didn't allow unbelievers to partcipate here.



> I think I'm done with this discussion. All you are saying is, "I'm right. They're wrong and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.


I'm saying that the Scriptures are clear. The Scriptures are true and that those who stand outside the Church's confession of those Scriptures are wrong. Especially those individuals and sects that arrogate to themselves aberrant private interpretations. I'm quite content that you're done with this discussion.



> That's just not where I am at. I find Scripture encouraging us to a deep humility. Not an arrogant attitude that just labels everyone who disagrees "foolish."


Or one that labels a man that believes in a Confession as arrogant even? This is the nature of "the tolerant" is it not? Those that are Confessional and do not loosen their subscription where you do are arrogant. Your open-mindedness in this matter gives you authority to prescribe the arrogant where my convictions of the Scriptures do not permit me to describe the character of a man as I believe the Scriptures do. As in society, so you believe here that the tolerant are those with such a right.

As you have offered nothing in the manner of Reformed thinking on the subject, I'm quite happy that you remain silent in the matter.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 14, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Thank you for clarifying precisely what I was demonstrating. What is clear in the Scriptures and can be required of a Confessional believer is defined by you. Ironic that you don't find this arrogant. Of course, by what standard you would then say that justification by faith is clear is beyond me - except I suppose by consensus or that you approve that it is a Confessional requirement. But perhaps I should heed the pagan that contacted me recently wondering why we didn't allow unbelievers to partcipate here.



This is a perfect demonstration of what I was saying. My point on this thread is about attitude. You can have all your confessional ducks in a row, but if you treat everyone outside of Confessionalism with sarcasm, calling them fools, cowards, and so on, you missed something somewhere along the line. I'm not even talking about my personal views on the thread, b/c I'm not a pacifist, though I have come to understand more why they arrive at their positions.



> I'm saying that the Scriptures are clear. The Scriptures are true and that those who stand outside the Church's confession of those Scriptures are wrong. Especially those individuals and sects that arrogate to themselves aberrant private interpretations. I'm quite content that you're done with this discussion.
> 
> Or one that labels a man that believes in a Confession as arrogant even? This is the nature of "the tolerant" is it not? Those that are Confessional and do not loosen their subscription where you do are arrogant. Your open-mindedness in this matter gives you authority to prescribe the arrogant where my convictions of the Scriptures do not permit me to describe the character of a man as I believe the Scriptures do. As in society, so you believe here that the tolerant are those with such a right.
> 
> As you have offered nothing in the manner of Reformed thinking on the subject, I'm quite happy that you remain silent in the matter.



Again, my point is not whether you are right or wrong about holding to the Confession tightly. You seem to think that I'm saying you're arrogant for holding to the Confession. Wrong. What I'm saying is that you can hold to the Confession tightly without treating everyone in an arrogant, unkind manner. 

So with that, I will not post on this thread again. I'm not arguing for pacifism. All I'm saying is that I wish that Christians, especially Reformed Christians, would demonstrate a deep grace and humility when discussing these matters, even when committed to their Confessional understanding.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> This is a perfect demonstration of what I was saying. My point on this thread is about attitude. You can have all your confessional ducks in a row, but if you treat everyone outside of Confessionalism with sarcasm, calling them fools, cowards, and so on, you missed something somewhere along the line. I'm not even talking about my personal views on the thread, b/c I'm not a pacifist, though I have come to understand more why they arrive at their positions.


I understand why they arrive at their positions but it does not change a thing. Most people consider Ghandi to be wise, I consider him to be a fool though I reckon he was a nice man. I am not being sarcastic in calling pacifists fools and cowards. I am calling them what the Scriptures label men who despise correction or who call the things that God has ordained wicked in themselves. It is impossible to read the requirements for military service in the OT or the passages about Abraham saving Lot or Saul and David protecting border towns without concluding the obvious that pacifists are dead wrong unless one takes an aberrant, dispensational view or concludes that God's view is not immutable. You have not provided one Reformed citation on the subject that we might discuss what the Biblical foundation is for the protection of the weak or what the role of the magistrate is in doing so. Instead, you provide the generic "well there are committed men on both sides" as if Truth is measured by commitment to it. Thus, you have not provided a counter standard or foundation from which you could demonstrate that their position is not un-Biblical (and therefore folly) but are more concerned about judging my attitude.



> Again, my point is not whether you are right or wrong about holding to the Confession tightly. You seem to think that I'm saying you're arrogant for holding to the Confession. Wrong. What I'm saying is that you can hold to the Confession tightly without treating everyone in an arrogant, unkind manner.


I have not treated a single man unkindly or arrogantly unless you consider Biblical labels to be arrogant and unkind. A man that calls the things that God calls good, evil is foolish. A man that allows a man or woman to die when he could have stopped it is in the role of the coward, whatever you think his motivations are. 



> So with that, I will not post on this thread again. I'm not arguing for pacifism. All I'm saying is that I wish that Christians, especially Reformed Christians, would demonstrate a deep grace and humility when discussing these matters, even when committed to their Confessional understanding.


I speak about men in general, you impugn my character directly and twice. You claim deep grace and humility for yourself and claim that I am arrogant for labelling men according to Scriptural designations. You claim the field for the things important in the Confession. Again, this is the purview of the truly humble: the tolerant.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 14, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I understand why they arrive at their positions but it does not change a thing. Most people consider Ghandi to be wise, I consider him to be a fool though I reckon he was a nice man. I am not being sarcastic in calling pacifists fools and cowards. I am calling them what the Scriptures label men who despise correction or who call the things that God has ordained wicked in themselves. It is impossible to read the requirements for military service in the OT or the passages about Abraham saving Lot or Saul and David protecting border towns without concluding the obvious that pacifists are dead wrong unless one takes an aberrant, dispensational view or concludes that God's view is not immutable. You have not provided one Reformed citation on the subject that we might discuss what the Biblical foundation is for the protection of the weak or what the role of the magistrate is in doing so. Instead, you provide the generic "well there are committed men on both sides" as if Truth is measured by commitment to it. Thus, you have not provided a counter standard or foundation from which you could demonstrate that their position is not un-Biblical (and therefore folly) but are more concerned about judging my attitude.
> 
> 
> I have not treated a single man unkindly or arrogantly unless you consider Biblical labels to be arrogant and unkind. A man that calls the things that God calls good, evil is foolish. A man that allows a man or woman to die when he could have stopped it is in the role of the coward, whatever you think his motivations are.
> ...



While I said I would not post again, I will only add this hopefully in there interests of being gracious myself, since that is what I have been talking about:

1) My purpose was not to argue for pacifism, as I am not in that camp.
2) I am sure that you are a godly man. Many of your posts have been helpful to me on several subjects. And for those reading this thread, I apologize for "impugning Rich's character." Such was not my intent, but as I have done so, I apologize. I recognize much pride in my own heart, perhaps that is why I have encouraged humility here, because I know it is something I have needed help on so many times. So, I apologize, and I hope that some good discussions might continue on this board on the subject that I might gain benefit and understanding from them.


----------

