# Reformed Christian Pacifism



## Particular Baptist

In recent months, I've come to the conviction that true, Christian pacifism is biblical and the true calling of the Christian. However, I know that most of my brothers and sisters do not see things this way, and that's fine. I just read an article by David A. Hoekema about what Christian paciifism is and is not. I found it to be quite interesting. I just thought it would be interesting to get everyone else's take on the article and Christian pacifism in general.



> A Practical Christian Pacifism
> 
> by David A. Hoekema
> 
> Dr. Hoekema is executive director of the American Philosophical Association, Newark, Delaware. This article appeared in the Christian Century, October 22, 1986, pps. 917-919. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at The Christian Century. This article prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Few moral and theological positions are as deeply cherished by their adherents, yet so quickly dismissed by their opponents, as pacifism. The moral legitimacy of using violence is among the most urgent issues of our time, and yet its discussion slips quickly into an exchange of stereotypes. Pacifists are to be commended, even admired—runs the familiar observation in mainline Protestant, Catholic and evangelical circles—but we who know what the world is really like cannot share their naive optimism. The pacifist’s reply has become equally familiar: the principles of just war, noble as they may sound, in practice merely pronounce a blessing upon ruling nations and ideologies.
> 
> I have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the gulf separating pacifists from defenders of just war. The church in which I was raised, the Christian Reformed Church, is what one draft board, in refusing a friend’s request to be recognized as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war, aptly termed a "war church." Calvinist theology has long been hostile to pacifism, and most Reformed churches’ reflections on war begin by distinguishing justified from unjustified wars. Yet the Reformed perspectives on the nature of the person and of society can actually support a realistic form of pacifism—a version that has received too little attention in either the "peace churches" or the "war churches."
> 
> Pacifism need not be politically naive, nor need it place undue faith in human goodness. These may be telling objections to some pacifists, but a careful articulation of the pacifist vision can meet them. By the same token, pacifists ought not deride just-war theory as merely Realpolitik in vestments, for the just-war tradition, when taken seriously, is just as stringent in its demands as is pacifism.
> 
> The case for Christian pacifism has been made frequently and fervently by many writers. The Gospel writers record that Jesus called his followers to a way of life in which violence and division are overcome by sacrificial love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and give freely to those who hate us. These themes in Jesus’ ministry were deeply rooted in the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and Jesus’ ministry an his sacrificial death were a continuation and a fulfillment of that tradition. Followers of Jesus, Christian pacifists say, must follow both his example and his teachings: they must show love for all in their actions and seek healing and reconciliation in every situation.
> 
> The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations. A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military.
> 
> A profound change in the Christian attitude toward war occurred at the time of the emperor Constantine, whose conversion to Christianity helped bring the Christian community from the fringes to the center of Western society. From the time of Constantine to the present, pacifism has been a minority view in the Christian church. The just-war tradition, rooted in the ethical theories of Plato and Cicero and formulated within the Christian tradition by Augustine, Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers, defends military force as a last resort against grave injustice. According to this view, when the innocent are threatened by an unjust aggressor and all other remedies have failed, Jesus’ demand for sacrificial love may require us to use lethal force.
> 
> Pacifism and just-war theory reach different conclusions only in a narrow range of cases: both positions insist that Christians must strive always for healing and reconciliation and must act out of love for all, and both traditions unequivocally condemn the reasons—whether nationalism, territorial or economic gain, revenge or glory—for which nearly all wars have been fought. Yet the differences that exist are both theologically and politically significant. Just-war defenders argue that if all means short of violence have failed and organized violence promises to be a limited and effective means of reestablishing justice, Christians may participate in war. Pacifists insist that to resort to warfare, even for a moral end, is to adopt a means inconsistent with the Christian’s calling.
> 
> Why is the pacifist vision of a healing and reconciling ministry of nonviolence not universally embraced in the churches? I would single out five prominent arguments to which pacifists, if they are to make their own position cogent and realistic, must respond.
> 
> Pacifism is surrender. "The pacifist viewpoint is appealing in principle, but in practice it means surrendering to the aggressor," is a charge heard often. "Capitulation to the forces of evil cannot be moral."
> 
> The problem with this objection is that it equates pacifism with passive nonresistance. Pacifism is not synonymous with "passivism": the pacifist rejection of war is compatible with a great many measures for defense against aggression. In fact, pacifist theorists have urged the development of a civilian-based non-military defense, which would encompass organized but nonviolent resistance, refusal to cooperate with occupying forces, and efforts to undermine enemy morale.
> 
> The tendency to equate pacifism with "passivism" and capitulation reflects how little we know of the remarkable historical successes nonviolent tactics have achieved, even in the face of brutal repression. From the courageous Swedish and Danish resistance to Nazism to the transformation of Polish society by the Solidarity labor movement, and from the struggle for Indian self-rule led by Gandhi to the struggle for racial equality in the United States led by Martin Luther King, Jr., and others, nonviolence has been a creative and effective force. Whether nonviolent resistance can always overcome aggression and whether its cost in suffering and death will in every case be less than that of war is difficult to say, but at least it cannot be said that pacifism is merely a policy of capitulation.
> 
> Pacifism extolls purity. "The main problem with pacifism" runs a second objection, " is that the pacifist places a higher value on his or her own purity of conscience than on saving others’ lives. If we are going to fulfill our obligations, we have to be willing to get our hands dirty and not hold ourselves on some higher moral plateau than everyone else. Pacifists enjoy the freedom that others ensure by their willingness to resort to arms.
> 
> This objection rests on two confusions. In the first place, pacifism is an objection to war per se, not merely an objection to personal participation in war. Pacifists do not ask for a special exemption because of their high moral views or delicate sensibilities; they refuse to participate in war because it is immoral. Their exemption from military service is simply the compromise position that has developed in a society in which moral objection to war is not unanimously shared.
> 
> A second confusion in this argument is the notion that taking part in war shall be regarded as a lesser evil, rendered necessary by extreme circumstances. Such a claim has no part in traditional just-war theory—or, indeed, in any coherent moral theory. The just-war proponent believes that war is sometimes required by justice, in which case it is not the lesser of two evils but is itself a good. The issue is whether intentional killing in war is ever a good thing, not whether one ought to grit one’s teeth and bravely commit one wrong rather than another.
> 
> Pacifism is based on optimistic humanism. "Pacifism links a noble ideal—the avoidance of violence—to naive and implausible assumptions about the inherent goodness of human nature. If I thought that I could trust people and nations to resolve their differences peaceably and fairly, I would be a pacifist too. But history teaches us differently."
> 
> This objection brings us near the heart of the theological argument against pacifism. Indeed, it is a telling argument against some forms of pacifism. Gandhi, for example, was sustained by a deep faith in the goodness of human nature, a goodness he thought nonviolent action could call forth. "If love or non-violence be not the law of our being," he wrote, "the whole of my argument falls to pieces" (in Gandhi on Non-violence, edited by Thomas Merton [New Directions, 1964], p. 25). Similar optimism about human nature seems to have motivated some Quaker writers and much of the pacifism of American church leaders following the First World War. Such optimism requires a selective and unrealistic assessment of human behavior and human capacities. If pacifism rests on a trust that people have a natural capacity and an irrepressible tendency to resolve their differences justly and harmoniously, then pacifism is a delusion, and a dangerous one.
> 
> Such trust is not, however, essential to pacifism. There can be a realistic pacifism, a pacifism that gives due weight to the sinfulness and perversity of human nature.
> 
> Pacifists and defenders of just war can agree that every life is tainted with sin, and that evil will inevitably arise, but still disagree about how we ought to respond when it does arise. An essential companion to the doctrine of sin is the doctrine of grace. Though human nature is corrupted by sin, it is also illuminated by God’s presence and guidance; God’s grace shows itself in countless ways in the lives of Christians and non-Christians alike. In light of this fact, evil demands a response that overcomes rather than compounds evil. Such a pacifist stance differs significantly from a Gandhian or humanistic faith in the capacity of the human heart for goodness, while retaining the conviction that there are other remedies for sin besides war.
> 
> It should be noted, further, that realism about human nature cuts two ways: if it undermines a pacifism based on optimism, it also undermines the assumption that weapons of destruction and violence intended to restrain evil will be used only for that purpose. The reality of human sinfulness means that the instruments we intend to use for good are certain to be turned to evil purposes as well. There is therefore a strong presumption for using those means of justice that are least likely to be abused and least likely to cause irrevocable harm when they are abused. An army trained and equipped for national defense can quickly become an army of conquest or a tool of repression in the hands of an unprincipled leader. But a nonviolent national defense force, or a peacekeeping force bringing together citizens of a dozen nations, is of little use except for its intended purpose.
> 
> Pacifism confuses moral categories. "The basic confusion of pacifists is their assumption that the principles of Christian morality which we ought to follow in our individual lives can be applied to governments. Only individuals can truly be moral; governments are by their very nature ‘immoral,’ if we judge them as we would judge individuals. Killing is wrong for individuals, but for states an entirely different standard must be applied."
> 
> The notion that morality applies to individuals and not to governments is completely contrary to a central doctrine of Reformed theology which is endorsed, in varying forms, by other Christian traditions as well: that Jesus Christ is the Lord not just of the church, nor of a special sphere of religious activity, but of all of the natural and human world. We are not called to serve God in our religious activities and to carry on as usual in the other areas of life—far from it. We are called to live as followers of Jesus Christ in every human activity. Thus, we must obey God’s demands for justice and reconciliation not only as families and churches but as societies. There is no room in Christian social thought for excluding governments from the realm of morality. If Christian ethics permits killing in certain circumstances, then violence is legitimate as a last resort, both for individuals and for governments. But if, on the other hand, Jesus did in fact demand that the members of the new Kingdom he inaugurated renounce all killing, then we must restructure both our personal and our institutional lives to fulfill that demand.
> 
> Pacifism is too patient. "To suffer wrong rather than harm another, to return nonviolent resistance for violent oppression, might have been appropriate at an earlier stage in our struggle. But the violence inflicted on us for so long leaves us no choice but to use force in return. We can endure no more; only arms can bring justice now."
> 
> This argument, the cry raised in Soweto and San Salvador, is painfully familiar, and it is impossible to hear it without feeling the deep pain of those who make it. I am not sure whether this argument can be answered. Those of us who regard it at a comfortable distance may not know the possibilities that remain to those whose lives have been stunted by violence.
> 
> Are there wrongs so grave that only violent means can set them right? I do not believe there are, but I do believe that the historical point at which one faces this question is significant. Nazism would surely have been destroyed by sustained nonviolent resistance had Christians and others not averted their gaze from its evil for so long. But whether Nazism could have been destroyed by nonviolent means in 1939 is a far more difficult question. Similarly, the Christian churches of South Africa, both black and white, could once have ended the policy of apartheid through nonviolent reforms, but today, as the black death toll mounts into the thousands, it is difficult to imagine that the system will fall unless commensurate force is brought to bear against it.
> 
> Situations of extreme oppression do not invalidate the pacifist vision of nonviolent change. Active but nonlethal resistance is both theologically and practically defensible even in seemingly hopeless circumstances—as the courageous work of André Trocmé in Vichy France and of several church leaders in South Africa today makes evident. Yet many in such situations turn to violence as their last hope in the struggle for justice. We may dispute their conclusion, but our response should be more one of solidarity than of condemnation.
> 
> I have argued that the major objections to pacifism can be met by a pacifism grounded in Christian commitment and realism about human nature. To answer these objections is not to show that pacifism is the only responsible stance that a Christian may adopt. The issue of the justifiability of violence needs to be faced squarely and debated vigorously in the churches, and pacifists and non-pacifists can learn much from each other in this debate. Nevertheless, I believe that the practical pacifism I have described deserves more serious consideration than it has received in Christian circles, especially since the major alternative to pacifism in Christian ethics, the just-war tradition, has significant deficiencies. Important as the just-war tradition has been in the development of Christian thinking about war and peace, it gives insufficient weight to the central Christian calling to be agents of healing and reconciliation.
> 
> Furthermore, the radical changes that the nuclear age has brought to the phenomenon of war make it impossible to weigh means against ends in the way required by just-war theory. War is justified, according to just-war criteria, when its good result—the restoration of justice—outweights the harm it will cause. But when the possible consequences of war include the destruction of humankind and the permanent defacement of the entire natural and human world, we do not know how to balance benefits against such costs. The just-war tradition cannot guide us in thinking about such a prospect.
> 
> What are the practical implications of such a pacifist stance? Several first steps can be clearly identified. The cessation of nuclear testing and of the development of new weapons systems, and the subsequent reduction of existing stockpiles of weapons would stabilize the international balance of terror. If at the same time means of international cooperation were created and international authorities strengthened, the threat of war would begin to hang less heavily over us. To go beyond these preliminary steps to abolish war would require far more drastic attacks on the political and economic roots of war.
> 
> No one can consistently call for peaceful alternatives to war without reflecting on the ways in which one personally participates in and benefits from social institutions that cause violence. Some people may refuse to take up arms, others may withhold taxes designated for military ends; and others may renounce jobs or possessions that implicate them in injustice. Here there is an urgent need for more open and honest discussion in the churches, for we are too quick to condemn those who bear witness in a way to which we do not feel called. We ought not to demand the same actions from everyone. Out of more open and honest discussion may come new and still untried ways of putting flesh on a shared vision of peace.
> 
> Practical Christian pacifism is grounded in faithfulness and hope, but also in realism. It provides not only a moral basis for dealing with conflicts but a framework within which to carry on the vital task of building structures that can eventually eliminate war and its causes.



A Practical Christian Pacifism


----------



## Poimen

The author does not establish pacifism but only seeks to legitimize it in light of certain objections.

My response: if pacifism is what Christ would have us practice, why then would soldiers be told by John the Baptist to continue to be soldiers? (Luke 3) The kingdom of God is coming upon them but this does not necessitate a change in their occupation but only a change of their practices within this occupation. Why did Cornelius continue to serve in the Roman army? (Acts 10) Clearly here is the opportunity for Peter to instruct this man to give up his charge for the New Testament era has begun; one which, according to the pacifist position, rules out such work. But he does no such thing. Why is the sword of the state legitimately held and wielded by God's command but Christians may not partake in such a endeavor? (Romans 13) If Christ expected the attitude of everyone to be conciliatory to their enemies in every situation, the state would be undermined as a lawful institution by God, which has been created to provide protection for its citizens. Indeed, it could be argued that serving in the military can, in some instances, be a fulfillment of the command to love my neighbour by protecting their welfare and well-being at the harm of my own life and well-being. 

As a point of fact, many Christians were soldiers in the times of the early church but had difficulty serving _not_ because they were all pacifists but because the government required an allegiance to Caesar that went beyond a honoring or respect of the man and/or office. They could not continue to serve because, by doing so, they would be committing idolatry.


----------



## jwright82

Have you ever read Stanley Hauerwas? He is a big supporter of christian pacifism. I have always wanted to ask someone who identified themselves as a pacifist some questions, so now I get my chance. First off I deeply respect the pacifist vision, although I'm not one, for trying to ground their P.O.V. in Scripture. I respect the theoretical P.O.V. of pacifism and in my own critiques of it I have tried to take it seriously and not resort to the same sort of name calling arguments in the article above. So I will begin. 

The article, along with most pacifists I've read, stress the govermental level and an individual and/or church community response to it, pacifistic response. What I'm intereted in is how this ethic plays itself out on an individual to individual level. Lets say, hypothetically of course, that a pacifist is marriad and has kids and someone breaks into their house with the intention of raping and murdering the wife and killing the children. How does the pacifist respond to this assuming his only option left is to physically engage the criminals? It seems to me that the line between violance and nonviolance can be blurred, is pushing the guy off her a violant act? Great discussion and I look foward to your answer.


----------



## Andres

Particular Baptist said:


> In recent months, I've come to the conviction that true, Christian pacifism is biblical and the true calling of the Christian. However, I know that most of my brothers and sisters do not see things this way, and that's fine. I just read an article by David A. Hoekema about what Christian paciifism is and is not. I found it to be quite interesting. I just thought it would be interesting to get everyone else's take on the article and Christian pacifism in general.
> http://http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115



Is this article what swayed you to pacifism? You assert that pacifism is biblical, so would you please share the scriptures that led you to conclude this. Thank you.


----------



## Poimen

James:

I will & can not speak on behalf of or for any pacifists but I know one pacifist who said it would be his duty to stand by and watch his wife be raped and/or killed.


----------



## jwright82

Poimen said:


> James:
> 
> I will & can not speak on behalf of or for any pacifists but I know one pacifist who said it would be his duty to stand by and watch his wife be raped and/or killed.


 I imagine that there would probally be a case by case basis. I heard an old pastor say to me one time that "it is just as wrong to break any and all of the commandments as it is to keep one commandment to point of breaking another", that always stuck with me. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

While I share some of the author's concerns, I have some serious questions:

1) Why does he seem to equate "nonviolent" (by which I understand him to mean not-physically-injurious) with "non-aggressive"? To key in on the two "20th Century" examples, I would categorize DMLK's and Ghandi's movements both as aggressive and confrontational. The fact that their forms of resistance and revolution did not officially countenance physical hostility didn't make them any less "hostile" to the powers from whom they demanded change. The author chooses to put all the "aggression" onto the opposition, when aggression is properly the imposition of principles by one party on another party regarless of their willingness, and regardless of the policy measures chosen for the imposition.

2) Where in the article is the actual exegetical defense of the pacifist position? Where is the author's grappling with the issues and positions defended by the "just-war" tradition? When the author notes Augustin as responsible for formulating an early defense of the latter view, he does not express the view as Augustin must surely have defended it _against_ an older, more entrenched view in the church that frowned on miilitary service by Christians--namely with an exegetical defense. He simply attributes the shift to the change in political fortunes, and rooted in non-biblical thinkers Plato and Cicero, to which Augustin simply added a Christian cast.

Of course, if he is correct then his view doesn't demand an exegetical foundation any more than Augustin's did. All he needs to do is point to a "shift" in politics or social factors, to the threats of the "nuclear age", and to non-biblical thinkers like DMLK and Ghandi (cf. either one to 1Jn.3:18). On this point, the author seems to me to be giving priority to his sociological outlook, and finding plausible analogies in general Bible-themes and in church history, rather than a rigorous Scriptural undertaking--one that might challenge the thesis he brought to the text, in order to see if it held water.

3) Where in the article is the actual biblical case for pacifism? Is he seeking to persuade people who are determined to follow the Bible, no matter where it leads? Or is he simply following the typical approach of modern theologues and moralists who appeal to people's "instincts"? How does the author defend his casual "lumping" of widely divergent movements of Indian nationalism and Danish WWII resistance, when the similarities in terms of "action" are only superficial? 

4) Civil disobedience is sinful. How can we build a theory of Christian pacifism aligned with the advocacy of the sort of civil disobedience that was championed by Ghandi and DMLK?

5) This statement is (thankfully) repudiated by the author: "Pacifism is based on optimistic humanism." Good, because this statement is contrary to a biblical humanism. How could we build a prescriptive theory for human behavior if one of the leading postulates was so deeply inverted? Unfortunately, the author never gets around to explaining how a more realistic view of human nature undercuts the apparent need for police and soldiers "bearing the sword."

6) One of the problems of the article is that the author conveniently lumps his opposition together--those who propose absurd or unbiblical objections to his view, along with more sane objections. It has the effect of putting them on a plane, such that in overturning several objections it appears as though the plausibility has evaporated, and there remains only a few, possibly cogent reasons for opposing pacifism; but on balance, the weight has shifted to its support.

7) In several places, the author sounds as though he is also indisposed toward the theory of capital punishment. Once again, unless someone has taken the Anabaptist position that views human government as irredeemable, intrinsically evil (and to be shunned), how can the position of pacifism be consistently Reformed and biblical? This was the position the magesterial reformers condemned as fanatical, as the ovethrow of society. And to whatever degree they were improperly wedded to the mores of the day, they were still correct in their rejection of the Anabaptist anarchical tendency.


If the civil magistrate is a "minister of God" who beareth not the sword in vain, then force--even to deadly force--is proper to his role as a minister of justice under the King of Kings.

Further, I find the author disturbingly vaccilating when it comes to dictating the principles of pacifism to the "oppressed" when they rise up. Why can he not condemn those actions as incompatible with universal principles of pacifism? Why must he instead advocate "solidarity" with those who are "repressed" and are simply acting according to a natural right? Which is it? It sounds to me like nothing more than a kind of elitism that we often encounter among the advantageous moralists.


> We who are above and enlightened and free are to maintain our principles in purity; whereas, for the poor and benighted and oppressed--they must be encouraged to throw off their proletarian shackles so that they may rise above their natural debasement, and into the light of the Christian principle, where violence is no longer called for.


Lastly, the conclusions of the article are not "individual" at all. They are almost wholly "social" and "political". The individual's responsibility to be humane and restorative and healing have been submerged in the political will to institute cultural transformation. This is nothing less than the abolition of the gospel. This is the alternative religion of Liberalism, only today it has become the parlance of the Evangelical world.

Theologian J Gresham Machen, also a political libertarian and pacific-minded man--who went to France in 1918 to work not with the war-machine, but with the hospitals and against the evils of war--wrote his book, _Christianity and Liberalism_ to distinguish the former as a religion of gospel-salvation from the latter as a religion of transformation. It's message needs to be heard today.


----------



## Skyler

I find it interesting that you post this in the wake of my own journey out of pacifism.

In some cases, I think, pacifists commit the same mistake as the health/wealth gospel teachers--they conflate the "already" and the "not yet". Of course, everyone agrees that war and violence are bad things that really shouldn't be in existence--just like disease and poverty. But they will be, nonetheless, until the new heavens and earth are brought into existence. Until then, evil men will be in the world, and their evil deeds will need to be punished in order to have a peaceful land (a la Romans 13).

Further, Christians are not forbidden from acting in a governmental capacity. The passages in Matthew 5 that are sometimes interpreted in that light are usually misinterpreted as instituting a change in or addition to the Law.

Is there anything wrong with _not_ participating in government? No. Do we have an obligation not to? Again, I don't think so.

Now, refusing to defend one's family against evildoers is something else entirely, which I do think is the critical implication of pacifism. If pacifism is not true, then in acting "pacifistically" one becomes an accomplice to the evildoer's deeds. On the other hand, if pacifism is true, then when one defends oneself or one's family, he is again breaking the law and doing wrong. So as a doctrine, a wrong view of this does have potentially serious implications.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Hey everyone,

Sorry about not being able to get back to you guys. This article is not why I find myself as mostly pacific. First of all, I began asking myself if Jesus really meant what he said in the sermon on the mount or if he was just theorizing. Bonhoeffer had a HUGE impact on me during this process. I can say that I don't believe Christ was theorizing or making some vague, abstract, principle for us to follow. He really meant what he said, he wasn't being vague. We must remember the way is narrow, not some set of theoretical principles. When Christ stated that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, he wasn't stating anything other than that. When we love our enemies as ourselves, we must ask ourselves in Christ placed any stipulations upon that love and I find none.

Secondly, I would not say that I am an absolute pacifist, just as Bonhoeffer was not an absolute pacifist. I am interested in Barth's idea of the 'Grenzfall', the exceptional case where resistance might take the form of violence. I understand this may be conflicting with the above paragraph, but I must say that I'm not an absolute pacifist. 

Thirdly, in reply to the question about what if someone was trying to hurt a member of my family, I would say that on an individual basis I would assist that person in need. But, if I was the one being attacked, I pray I would flee and resist in a nonviolent way.


----------



## TimV

> I would not say that I am an absolute pacifist, just as Bonhoeffer was not an *absolute* pacifist.



How about not at all ;-) He was both a high ranking member of German intel and took steps to kill his country's leader.

If you're going to hold that position, and claim



> Jesus really meant what he said in the sermon on the mount



in the sense that the rest of us DON'T think Jesus really meant what He said, you put yourself, as a very young man, into the quite arrogant position of thinking of thinking you have comprehended a truth that the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout the ages have been too dense to see. And I don't mean that sarcastically, but just as food for thought.


----------



## Particular Baptist

So, I've been looking more and more online and I found some articles that better explain my own pacifism. I know many of you will be offended at the fact that I have an affection for the neo-orthodox theologians, while not agreeing with much of what they say, neverless I have been influenced by them. 

Barth may have said it best that to be a principled pacifist is not Christian, but rather to be a practical pacifist. 

Here's an article about Barth's pacifism I found interestinghttp://http://theology.nd.edu/people/research/yoder-john/documents/KARLBARTH.pdf


----------



## Montanablue

Interesting. Thanks for posting. I have been moving more and more towards pacifism in the past few years (although I'm not there yet). What I am more opposed to is militarism and nationalism/imperialism. I'm certainly not convinced that self-defense is unbiblical.


----------



## TimV

> What I am more opposed to is militarism and nationalism/imperialism. I'm certainly not convinced that self-defense is unbiblical.


We'll make a Calvinist anarcho capitalistic libertarian out of you yet. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


----------



## Particular Baptist

> How about not at all ;-) He was both a high ranking member of German intel and took steps to kill his country's leader.



Again, sir, I would ask you to reread my position. I am a practical pacifist, not a principled one. I do not believe in abstracts (in most cases) and therefore I can not say that I am an absolute pacifist. I would disagree with you about Bonhoeffer, sir. Read _The Cost of Discipleship_ and I'm sure you will gain better insight into what Bonhoeffer is saying, and understand my own position better. Also, I would say that Bonhoeffer's pacifism is consistent with that of Barth's (who had a major influence on Bonhoeffer) and the idea of _Grenzfall_, the exceptional case. Another thing that I would remind you is that just because someone is pacific doesn't mean that they are passive, it simply means that they decry the use of violence in most if not all instances. 



> If you're going to hold that position, and claim in the sense that the rest of us DON'T think Jesus really meant what He said, you put yourself, as a very young man, into the quite arrogant position of thinking of thinking you have comprehended a truth that the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout the ages have been too dense to see. And I don't mean that sarcastically, but just as food for thought.



I'm sorry if I've offended you. You are correct, I am young but I will not allow myself to be moved away from what I see as a quite literal command in scripture to love our neighbor as ourself. Jesus himself did not resist when he was led away to be crucified. If anyone had the right to use violence, surely it was he. Even when Judas was betraying him and gave him the kiss on the cheek, Christ himself called Judas his friend. I just don't see our allegiance as to anyone but Christ and his commands should be given full authority. He never placed any preconditions on the love we are to show others, even our enemies, so why should we pretend to have interpreted Christ in a way that does?


----------



## TimV

> Also, I would say that Bonhoeffer's pacifism is consistent with that of Barth's



Joshua nailed it from a theological view point. From a practical viewpoint, looking for personal consistency in the lives of Barthians will disappoint you.


----------



## Skyler

Particular Baptist said:


> If you're going to hold that position, and claim in the sense that the rest of us DON'T think Jesus really meant what He said, you put yourself, as a very young man, into the quite arrogant position of thinking of thinking you have comprehended a truth that the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout the ages have been too dense to see. And I don't mean that sarcastically, but just as food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if I've offended you. You are correct, I am young but I will not allow myself to be moved away from what I see as a quite literal command in scripture to love our neighbor as ourself. Jesus himself did not resist when he was led away to be crucified. If anyone had the right to use violence, surely it was he. Even when Judas was betraying him and gave him the kiss on the cheek, Christ himself called Judas his friend. I just don't see our allegiance as to anyone but Christ and his commands should be given full authority. He never placed any preconditions on the love we are to show others, even our enemies, so why should we pretend to have interpreted Christ in a way that does?
Click to expand...

 
I'm curious as to whether or not you would agree that Jesus' commands were a reiteration of/clarification of the Mosaic Law, clearing away the Pharisees' misinterpretations and twisting of Scripture. 

If that's the case, then to say that punishing evildoers is inconsistent with Jesus' words is to say that the Mosaic Law was inconsistent with itself, since it prescribe punishing evildoers and clearly permitted self-defense. (I will provide references if you need them, but I'm sure you've already found them if you've done any serious study of pacifism.)

If not, then to what was Jesus referring when he said "You have heard that it has been said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? (Loose Paraphrase Translation) I have found the first half (love your neighbor) in the Old Testament, but not the second.

Most, if not all, of the passages cited in support of pacifism actually have their roots in the Old Testament--the "love your neighbor" passages, for example, or the "vengeance is mine" passages. This being the case, biblical "pacifism" is equally practicable under the civil portions of the Mosaic Law as it is today. It should, therefore, be defined with this in mind. Right?


----------



## smhbbag

It was my understanding that we are not permitted to argue against the confessions. We may question, probe, and understand, yes, but not argue directly against.

As a credobaptist, the OP is asserting that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith deviates from the scriptures.

In 24.2, The Civil Magistrate, we find:



> It is lawful for Christians to accept and carry out the duties of a magistrate when called upon. In the performance of such office they are particularly responsible for maintaining justice and peace by application of the right and beneficial laws of the nation. *Also, to maintain justice and peace, they may lawfully (under the New Testament) engage in war if it is just and essential.*



Have I misinterpreted the rules?


----------



## au5t1n

I am of the opinion that Jesus, in mentioning eye-for-eye, etc., was correcting a misapplication that eye-for-eye applies to individuals. If you actually read it in Leviticus and others, it is clearly intended for the magistrate to carry out eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, life-for-life, etc. This rule was never given to govern personal relationships. Thus Jesus corrected their behavior of taking vengeance in personal relationships.

So to sum up:

In personal relationships, turn the other cheek.
In an act of the government, let the punishment fit the crime.


----------



## Particular Baptist

> In personal relationships, turn the other cheek.
> In an act of the government, let the punishment fit the crime.



I would say that you are right, in that Christ is dealing with individuals when he discusses the beatitudes. However, to many on this board, a Christian is to behave differently in a governmental role than he is to as an individual Christian. I find this absurd. You cannot serve 2 masters. You cannot have one set of morales in one capacity and others in another capacity. We serve one Lord and our allegiance is to him and him alone, not to him on our own time and to the government if we are elected to political office or taking part in some civic activity!! We are not believers in one arena and apathetic or secular in another part of life. I refuse to believe that our allegiance should be divided. 



> Practicing Pacifism - properly defined (i.e. all violence is unjustifiable) - is a gross violation of the 6th Commandment, since it is our duty to protect our families/neighbours, etc. from unjust harm. It is just as wicked as killing non-combatants and writing it off as "collateral damage" or "the price of war," particularly because it's under the guise of being pious.



Joshua, please read my above quote when I specifically deal with this issue. I stated that I would assist someone else who was being attacked by another human being. 



> I'm curious as to whether or not you would agree that Jesus' commands were a reiteration of/clarification of the Mosaic Law, clearing away the Pharisees' misinterpretations and twisting of Scripture.
> 
> If that's the case, then to say that punishing evildoers is inconsistent with Jesus' words is to say that the Mosaic Law was inconsistent with itself, since it prescribe punishing evildoers and clearly permitted self-defense. (I will provide references if you need them, but I'm sure you've already found them if you've done any serious study of pacifism.)
> 
> If not, then to what was Jesus referring when he said "You have heard that it has been said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? (Loose Paraphrase Translation) I have found the first half (love your neighbor) in the Old Testament, but not the second.
> 
> Most, if not all, of the passages cited in support of pacifism actually have their roots in the Old Testament--the "love your neighbor" passages, for example, or the "vengeance is mine" passages. This being the case, biblical "pacifism" is equally practicable under the civil portions of the Mosaic Law as it is today. It should, therefore, be defined with this in mind. Right?



Skyler, we must first make the distinctions between the Mosaic Law, which was given to ethnic NATIONAL Israel, and the Law of the Spirit or Christ, which is given to the Church. The Church, the Israel of God, is not a national, governmental, or civic organization therefore, I would hope that you can see that the Church does not have the same authority that a government would have to wield the sword. The Church is strictly a spiritual community of disciples. I would then ask those on this board if they can separate their lives between governmental roles and their roles as disciples of Christ? If so, please tell me how you can serve two masters.

Let me restate some things that I have, admittedly, not made clear.

1.) I am not against using force in helping other individual(s) who are being attacked. I agree that this is biblical.

2.) I am against using violence to protect one's self, I find it no where in Scripture that the New Covenant Church or its members are to use force to protect itself. 

3.) I believe it unscriptural for believers to be engaged in any form of violent revolution (such as the Revolutionary War in America) against the governments above them. 

4.) I believe that the overwhelming majority of wars are fought on unjust grounds and therefore most Christians who advocate the just war theory have a hard time in finding examples of just war. World War II would be the only example that I can think of in this instance, and even then I myself object to actions taken in that war such as the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.

Another thing that most peope don't know is that both Tertullian and Origen wrote tracts against Christians joining the military. The "pagan philosopher Celsus criticized Christians for shirking their civic duties by not participating in the armed forces, which he feared would lead to barbarian conquest and therefore the end of civilization and the pax romana if too many Roman men became Christians, and ironically destroy the Christian religion itself." Also, why weren't any of the apostles in scripture in the military or in any governmental posts? If Christ wanted Christians to persue such political change, as well as military change, why didn't he be the Messiah that the Jews desired him to be and throw off the chains of Rome? It appears to me that there is an inconsistency in a Reformed tradition that critisizes the Jews who desired a political Messiah when most in the Reformed tradition, including Calvin and others, see such a religious political order as almost Orthodox. If Christ's kingdom was of this world then why didn't his disciples take up arms and fight for it?

Lastly, to those of you who think that I'm going against some confession as if that confession were infallible I respond by saying that you might very well be right, that I could be very wrong and in error on this issue and I pray for you're guidance if I am in error. But please do not use the confession as some sort of sacred writing which cannot be deviated from.


----------



## N. Eshelman

It looks like the Westminster Divines had a thing or two to say about pacifism... not only is it a wrong philosophical position, it is also unbiblical, unconfessional, and MAY have 6th commandment violations written all over it: 

Question 134: Which is the sixth commandment? 
Answer: The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by *just defense thereof against violence*, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and p*rotecting and defending the innocent*.

Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, *except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense*; the *neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life*; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> In personal relationships, turn the other cheek.
> In an act of the government, let the punishment fit the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that you are right, in that Christ is dealing with individuals when he discusses the beatitudes. However, to many on this board, a Christian is to behave differently in a governmental role than he is to as an individual Christian. I find this absurd. You cannot serve 2 masters. You cannot have one set of morales in one capacity and others in another capacity. We serve one Lord and our allegiance is to him and him alone, not to him on our own time and to the government if we are elected to political office or taking part in some civic activity!! We are not believers in one arena and apathetic or secular in another part of life. I refuse to believe that our allegiance should be divided.
Click to expand...


You are talking about two different things. If God gave specific roles to the government and different specific roles to private individuals in their personal relationships, then it isn't "serving two masters" to carry out both faithfully. For instance, a judge can hand out the death penalty in court, but not in his private life. This isn't serving two masters. It's serving the one master who inspired both Rom. 13 and the Sermon on the Mount.


----------



## Particular Baptist

The judge example could be an example. I would ask myself in any situation what did Christ and his disciples do when placed in a similar situation. If I were a policeman and I were being attacked would it be biblical to use violence to defend myself? Jesus said turn the other cheek. Stephen did not resist when he was being stoned. Paul was stoned, though he survived. Did Christ tell Peter and the other disciples to fight when the soldiers came to arrest Christ in the garden? No, on the contrary he rebuked Peter's use of aggression when he tried to defend Christ himself! When Paul was attacked many times in cities after preaching the gospel did he retalitate with violence? I find NO instance in the New Testament where a Christian was called upon to use force to defend one's self. Moreover, we never find any Christian going INTO a position of government authority or the military.


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> The judge example could be an example. I would ask myself in any situation what did Christ and his disciples do when placed in a similar situation. If I were a policeman and I were being attacked would it be biblical to use violence to defend myself? Jesus said turn the other cheek. Stephen did not resist when he was being stoned. Paul was stoned, though he survived. Did Christ tell Peter and the other disciples to fight when the soldiers came to arrest Christ in the garden? No, on the contrary he rebuked Peter's use of aggression when he tried to defend Christ himself! When Paul was attacked many times in cities after preaching the gospel did he retalitate with violence? I find NO instance in the New Testament where a Christian was called upon to use force to defend one's self. *Moreover, we never find any Christian going INTO a position of government authority or the military.*


 
None of your examples involve Christian government officers except perhaps the policeman, so they're irrelevant to my point. The bolded statement is true, but doesn't give the full picture. There were multiple Christians involved in government and military in Scripture, and they didn't quit.

Regarding the judge's job, Paul (the one who endured the stoning you mentioned - twice actually, if I'm not mistaken) is clear: 



> Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.



And regarding your statement "Jesus said to turn the other cheek," I addressed this already. Jesus said he came not to abolish the law. So eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth stands for governments. He told ordinary people, in their personal relationships, not to take vengeance, but to turn the other cheek. He was correcting their false idea that eye-for-eye applies in their daily interactions.


----------



## Particular Baptist

> You are talking about two different things. If God gave specific roles to the government and different specific roles to private individuals in their personal relationships, then it isn't "serving two masters" to carry out both faithfully. For instance, a judge can hand out the death penalty in court, but not in his private life. This isn't serving two masters. It's serving the one master who inspired both Rom. 13 and the Sermon on the Mount.



I believe you are confusing Christ's words as well as Paul's. Romans 13 does not deal with those who are Christians, but with the earthly government under which Christians live. Christians are to understand that governments are ordained by God but they are not to understand that they can have different moral conclusions based upon their role at a specific time. The only context that Paul's words are given is to those who are not in governmental authority, but those who are under the authority of that government. If we believe that God ordains everything, including evil, does that mean that Christians are free to do evil in certain realms?


----------



## Poimen

Spencer:

Your argument about serving two masters is like an egalitarian arguing that since we are all one in Christ women should be able to serve in church offices. Men and women are equal before the Lord with respect to salvation, but that does not mean that they don't serve Him in different functions and different ways. There is no contradiction here either: Christ is Lord over all, but this does not mean that we are called to recognize His Lordship in every aspect of life in exactly the same way. 

Or, to use the words of Jesus, the law requires mercy AND justice. (Matthew 23:23 cf. Luke 11:42) Seeking to punish another human being according to God's direction (i.e. the law) is not a contradiction of the command to love one's neighbour. Both are commands from God and both must be followed. _Wisdom_ will seek to apply the one in the right context and right balance but, nevertheless, they will continue to exist side by side until our Lord returns again. If we fail to exact justice by the proper means (government) we will all lose out, even Christians.


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> You are talking about two different things. If God gave specific roles to the government and different specific roles to private individuals in their personal relationships, then it isn't "serving two masters" to carry out both faithfully. For instance, a judge can hand out the death penalty in court, but not in his private life. This isn't serving two masters. It's serving the one master who inspired both Rom. 13 and the Sermon on the Mount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing Christ's words as well as Paul's. Romans 13 does not deal with those who are Christians, but with the earthly government under which Christians live. Christians are to understand that governments are ordained by God but they are not to understand that they can have different moral conclusions based upon their role at a specific time. The only context that Paul's words are given is to those who are not in governmental authority, but those who are under the authority of that government. If we believe that God ordains everything, including evil, does that mean that Christians are free to do evil in certain realms?
Click to expand...

 
An unbelieving judge executing a convicted murderer (just as God had commanded his own people in the OT as well) is a "minister of God," but a believer in that role is sinning to do the same? A judge who will not use the DP against murderers has blood on his hands (if he is legally able to give it and it is a legitimate, intentional murder). He shares responsibilty for the increase in murder of innocent people that will occur. He may be a pacifist, but he is not peaceful. Peace would be protecting the innocent.


----------



## Claudiu

How would you back up your pacifist stance as being biblical if someone pointed out the example of the Jews settling their land with the sword when coming out of Egypt into their promised land? Jw.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Show me a Reformed Christian who is a pacifist... and I'll show you someone who isn't _really_ Reformed!


----------



## PuritanZealot

Must say I'm surprised to see a dicussion of pacifism on a Reformed forum, what with our history of persecution by the Papacy and by other less 'reformed' Protestants. 
The key things that stick out for me from scripture are the comments above about the centurions and soldiers not changing their jobs or being told to change their jobs, Jesus not bringing up the fact that violence was 'wrong' on the Sermon on the Mount and the fact that he said quite plainly 'I come not to bring peace but a sword'.
From OT I think there are key scriptures to think of, when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and saw the destruction of the Egyptians their first words after praising God by name were 'Lord is a Warrior'. David was often called a man after God's own heart and if the Trinity is a three way personality of a single God (which it is) then that means the Holy Spirit is also a warrior, fighting battles against Satan and Jesus is also a warrior, returning with his sword and rod of iron to smite the nations...and aren't we supposed to emulate Messiah in everything?
Finally I think the OT has it in Leviticus 19:16, 'do not stand by your brothers/neighbours blood'. Some of the abominable translations like that heretical travesty the NIV have it as 'do not cause your neighbour trouble', which is insane given the original hebrew context. But that scriptures says it all, we are commanded not to stand by whilst our brother is murdered or harmed. Jesus would have mentioned that being changed if he wanted it to be.
Finally, historically if the Reformation leaders had stood by and encouraged the protestant laity to give up and all be martyrs we wouldn't have ever stood up against the Papacy and created protestant countries. A man isn't to watch his neighbour die or suffer, so a Church isn't to stand by and watch brethren suffer, so a protestant nation isn't to stand by and watch its people suffer. It all goes in circles, as a Reformed Baptist I would think it goes with the territory not only to condone righteous Biblically sound resistance but to encourage it...as long as it is 100% Biblically approved.
Knox would agree.


----------



## Claudiu

Particular Baptist said:


> 3.) I believe it unscriptural for believers to be engaged in any form of violent revolution (such as the Revolutionary War in America) against the governments above them.


----------



## TimV

> Show me a Reformed Christian who is a pacifist... and I'll show you someone who isn't really Reformed!



The Puritan was going to church in Colonial America with a musket on his shoulder. The scoffer said "If you believe your *time* is in the hands of God, then why are you carrying the musket? The Puritan said "Just in case I meet an Indian who's *time* is up.


----------



## jwright82

Well out of respect for Pacifists, principled or otherwise, I would like to offer some theoretical ideas to see where they take us. Violence is not part of the original creation, which is good. Violence is is a post-fall condition, now I am not a pacifist but I have deep respect for their P.O.V., which raises the question of whether or not it has become a normative part of each and everybodies lives. 

I agree that war and violance are not "right" in a metaphysical sense, not being in original creation, but perhaps "right" in a post-fall world in which we find ourselves. To me it seems that these knotty issues are at the heart of the whole debate. I would like thank Particular Baptist for bringing this up because some of us may disagree with him but none of us can fault him, or anyone who agrees with him, for having a high respect for human life.


----------



## PuritanZealot

> I would like thank Particular Baptist for bringing this up because some of us may disagree with him but none of us can fault him, or anyone who agrees with him, for having a high respect for human life.



Totally agree.


----------



## Skyler

Particular Baptist said:


> In personal relationships, turn the other cheek.
> In an act of the government, let the punishment fit the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that you are right, in that Christ is dealing with individuals when he discusses the beatitudes. However, to many on this board, a Christian is to behave differently in a governmental role than he is to as an individual Christian. I find this absurd. You cannot serve 2 masters. You cannot have one set of morales in one capacity and others in another capacity. We serve one Lord and our allegiance is to him and him alone, not to him on our own time and to the government if we are elected to political office or taking part in some civic activity!! We are not believers in one arena and apathetic or secular in another part of life. I refuse to believe that our allegiance should be divided.
Click to expand...


So then are you suggesting that the Old Testament proposed two sets of morals when it said, on the one hand, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and on the other "feed your enemy"? The two commands aren't mutually contradictory; they're dealing with different situations. The first is dealing with a judicial context; the second is dealing with an interpersonal context.



> I'm curious as to whether or not you would agree that Jesus' commands were a reiteration of/clarification of the Mosaic Law, clearing away the Pharisees' misinterpretations and twisting of Scripture.
> 
> If that's the case, then to say that punishing evildoers is inconsistent with Jesus' words is to say that the Mosaic Law was inconsistent with itself, since it prescribe punishing evildoers and clearly permitted self-defense. (I will provide references if you need them, but I'm sure you've already found them if you've done any serious study of pacifism.)
> 
> If not, then to what was Jesus referring when he said "You have heard that it has been said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? (Loose Paraphrase Translation) I have found the first half (love your neighbor) in the Old Testament, but not the second.
> 
> Most, if not all, of the passages cited in support of pacifism actually have their roots in the Old Testament--the "love your neighbor" passages, for example, or the "vengeance is mine" passages. This being the case, biblical "pacifism" is equally practicable under the civil portions of the Mosaic Law as it is today. It should, therefore, be defined with this in mind. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler, we must first make the distinctions between the Mosaic Law, which was given to ethnic NATIONAL Israel, and the Law of the Spirit or Christ, which is given to the Church. The Church, the Israel of God, is not a national, governmental, or civic organization therefore, I would hope that you can see that the Church does not have the same authority that a government would have to wield the sword. The Church is strictly a spiritual community of disciples. I would then ask those on this board if they can separate their lives between governmental roles and their roles as disciples of Christ? If so, please tell me how you can serve two masters.
Click to expand...


Of course I recognize the limitations of the Mosaic Law. I'm not a theonomist. But would you say that the Mosaic Law contradicted, in any point, the moral law which God has revealed in the Old Covenant?



> Let me restate some things that I have, admittedly, not made clear.
> 
> 1.) I am not against using force in helping other individual(s) who are being attacked. I agree that this is biblical.
> 
> 2.) I am against using violence to protect one's self, I find it no where in Scripture that the New Covenant Church or its members are to use force to protect itself.



Agree with the first point; a little shaky on the second. It's true, the Bible nowhere commands it (that I know of, at least explicitly) but neither, in my opinion, does it forbid it. So, lacking Biblical authority, it's not exactly something that can be imposed on others.



> 3.) I believe it unscriptural for believers to be engaged in any form of violent revolution (such as the Revolutionary War in America) against the governments above them.



I don't disagree. In fact David (in the Old Testament) is a perfect example of this.



> 4.) I believe that the overwhelming majority of wars are fought on unjust grounds and therefore most Christians who advocate the just war theory have a hard time in finding examples of just war. World War II would be the only example that I can think of in this instance, and even then I myself object to actions taken in that war such as the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.



Any war fought by unbelievers will be unjust to some extent. In my opinion.



> Another thing that most peope don't know is that both Tertullian and Origen wrote tracts against Christians joining the military. The "pagan philosopher Celsus criticized Christians for shirking their civic duties by not participating in the armed forces, which he feared would lead to barbarian conquest and therefore the end of civilization and the pax romana if too many Roman men became Christians, and ironically destroy the Christian religion itself." Also, why weren't any of the apostles in scripture in the military or in any governmental posts? If Christ wanted Christians to persue such political change, as well as military change, why didn't he be the Messiah that the Jews desired him to be and throw off the chains of Rome? It appears to me that there is an inconsistency in a Reformed tradition that critisizes the Jews who desired a political Messiah when most in the Reformed tradition, including Calvin and others, see such a religious political order as almost Orthodox. If Christ's kingdom was of this world then why didn't his disciples take up arms and fight for it?



That may be more of a critique of theonomy than anything else. I don't think that Christ's kingdom was of this world, nor that we are commanded to pursue political change.



> Lastly, to those of you who think that I'm going against some confession as if that confession were infallible I respond by saying that you might very well be right, that I could be very wrong and in error on this issue and I pray for you're guidance if I am in error. But please do not use the confession as some sort of sacred writing which cannot be deviated from.


 
I think the motive behind that limitation is not because the confession is considered "sacred" or "infallible" so much that the admins wanted a set of clearly defined limits for discussion on the Board to preclude heated controversies, and the confessions provide a great starting point for that. It's not so much a moral issue--i.e. "You shouldn't discuss this"--as it is "This runs contrary to the purpose of this board".

---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------




PuritanZealot said:


> Finally I think the OT has it in Leviticus 19:16, 'do not stand by your brothers/neighbours blood'. Some of the abominable translations like that heretical travesty the NIV have it as 'do not cause your neighbour trouble', which is insane given the original hebrew context. But that scriptures says it all, we are commanded not to stand by whilst our brother is murdered or harmed. Jesus would have mentioned that being changed if he wanted it to be.


 
First off, that's not the NIV's rendering of it. I'm not sure where you get your Bible translations.  

The NIV says "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbour's life."
Other translations, such as the N/KJV, NASB, and ESV are unanimous that it says "do not stand _against_ your neighbor's blood". There's enough of a difference there for your argument to fail unless you first disprove the assertion that the New Testament forbids defending others (which isn't really in question anyway). What translation were you using?

I'm not defending the pacifist position here, but as an advocate for accuracy from all positions (even right ones), I had to comment.


----------



## N. Eshelman

nleshelman said:


> It looks like the Westminster Divines had a thing or two to say about pacifism... not only is it a wrong philosophical position, it is also unbiblical, unconfessional, and MAY have 6th commandment violations written all over it:
> 
> Question 134: Which is the sixth commandment?
> Answer: The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by *just defense thereof against violence*, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and p*rotecting and defending the innocent*.
> 
> Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, *except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense*; the *neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life*; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.


 
I agree! (bump)


----------



## PuritanZealot

The King James (which is the only version I use or recognise, alongside Geneva Study) has it as "neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD." In the Geneva Study Bible the notes has the verse commentary "a) do not go about slandering your neighbour and b) do not consent to his death or conspire with the wicked". This fully supports what I was saying, we are not stand by an consent to our neighbours murder, how are we not stand by? Surely by stopping it. And also God never punished Moses for slaying the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew and that was technically murder, because the Law hadn't been given yet and he didn't go through the correct procedure. Was Moses wrong for protecting his brother?


----------



## TimV

> And also God never punished Moses for slaying the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew and that was technically murder, because the Law hadn't been given yet and he didn't go through the correct procedure.



a: Did Egypt have a legal system that dealt with murder? If so, then there was a law in place. Unless
b: None of us are responsible to obey civil laws that differ from the Bible, so it would be right for you and I to kill homosexuals outside our legal structure.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Hello again everyone!!

Last night I began rereading Bonhoeffer and I must say that any doubts that were created within myself about my position were put to rest once I read his chapter on Revenge in 'The Cost of Discipleship'. I would encourage everyone to read the book if they haven't, as it has been one of the most influential books I've ever read. I'll be back soon to answer some of your objections after I get out of class, but for now I'm going to post a link to the chapter on Revenge in Bonhoeffer's book for anyone who would like to read it.

http://http://books.google.com/books?id=druZyeBp30gC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=bonhoeffer+cost+of+discipleship+revenge&source=bl&ots=nMQsxB2X6Z&sig=hU2rE8_pV58LjpFLHtTJLSt4hZI&hl=en&ei=TCB8S6SFHIuQNvWbrbQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanZealot said:


> The King James (which is the only version I use or recognise, alongside Geneva Study) has it as "neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD." In the Geneva Study Bible the notes has the verse commentary "a) do not go about slandering your neighbour and b) do not consent to his death or conspire with the wicked". This fully supports what I was saying, we are not stand by an consent to our neighbours murder, how are we not stand by? Surely by stopping it. And also God never punished Moses for slaying the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew and that was technically murder, because the Law hadn't been given yet and he didn't go through the correct procedure. Was Moses wrong for protecting his brother?


 
1) Your reply didn't address the basic failure of your original post, which was a misquote of a translation you don't like. So, the criticism of your carelessness stands, unless you now provide the accurate documentation, regardless of whether you only approve of one or two Bible translations.

2) You should specify whose and which comments you are engaging. Otherwise, it just sounds like a blunderbuss-rant. You ignored the constructive criticism of a poster who essentially agrees with you, and defended an interpretation of Lev.19:16 which no one thus far brought into dispute.

3) Did God never punish Moses? I would like to know how you know this point, or its contrary. I know one thing, God did not defend Moses, either against the Egyptian Pharaoh or with the recalcitrant Israelite the next day. Should Moses have killed the abusive Israelite as well? Were both abusers worthy of death? Who should decide? Apparently the Israelite abuser thought his situation was analogous to the Egyptian's who was slain. Was Moses a "respecter of persons" in those situations?

It is right to come to the defense of one's neighbor, to save him from the murderer, even if the murderer must die at the savior's hands. But that blood must be judged by the law as well. It is not our right to be "law unto ourselves." The law will judge as to whether that action was justified, or not. The latest abortion-doctor murderer (like all the others) is a moral failure, not an example for us to follow. Most people who take the law into their own hands do not see themselves properly as subject to the law of God. They are lawless.

4) Your statement: "the law wasn't given yet" is abhorrent as an apology for slaying. Murder is a violation of the moral law of God, written on man's heart from the beginning. Cain was a murderer from the beginning. Moses is most often defended as the prototypical Israelite Judge (which would give him sanction and authority from God). But even so, his action was precipitous and foolhardy, even if it passed muster before God. 

Moses' fault was that he intended to deliver his people by the arm of flesh, to rally Israel to an open revolt. This, however, was neither the right timing nor the right means. Moses got half of what he needed in preparation for his deliverer-task in his first 40yrs, being schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt. He got the remainder of his preparation in the next 40yrs, in the school of humiliation. To be a fit Mediator for the people, he needed not only wisdom, but to become "the meekest man" on the face of the earth.

Moses' act against the Egyptian was mixed. It was noble in one sense, but it was also driven by pride. He was not equitable in judgment the next day, nor did he have the strength of character to withstand the Israelite's stubborn face, or the fear of what should happen, when "the thing was known." He fled from Pharaoh.

Righteous courage comes from God. Standing in nothing but the power of God, chastened and guileless, when he was 80yrs Moses faced down the most powerful man on the planet.

The lesson of Moses is a lesson in properly acquired and properly exercised judicial power. It is not a license to kill.


----------



## earl40

Curious, would you say if "latest abortion-doctor murderer (like all the others)" were killing 4 year old's in their clinics would they be "moral failures"? Of course this assumes it were legal and accepted in the eyes of the "law".


----------



## Particular Baptist

> Or, to use the words of Jesus, the law requires mercy AND justice. (Matthew 23:23 cf. Luke 11:42) Seeking to punish another human being according to God's direction (i.e. the law) is not a contradiction of the command to love one's neighbour. Both are commands from God and both must be followed. _Wisdom_ will seek to apply the one in the right context and right balance but, nevertheless, they will continue to exist side by side until our Lord returns again. If we fail to exact justice by the proper means (government) we will all lose out, even Christians.



You are correct in that it is government who has been given the authority to execute justice. It is not the church's role to execute this task, but secular governments. This is so because "Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law… the church … is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore… must patiently endure aggression.”-Bonhoeffer. “At this point it becomes evident that when a Christian meets with injustice, he no longer clings to his rights and defends them at all costs.”

“The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match…..Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren.” “There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.”-Bonhoeffer


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> Or, to use the words of Jesus, the law requires mercy AND justice. (Matthew 23:23 cf. Luke 11:42) Seeking to punish another human being according to God's direction (i.e. the law) is not a contradiction of the command to love one's neighbour. Both are commands from God and both must be followed. _Wisdom_ will seek to apply the one in the right context and right balance but, nevertheless, they will continue to exist side by side until our Lord returns again. If we fail to exact justice by the proper means (government) we will all lose out, even Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in that it is government who has been given the authority to execute justice. It is not the church's role to execute this task, but secular governments. This is so because "Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law… the church … is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore… must patiently endure aggression.”-Bonhoeffer. “At this point it becomes evident that when a Christian meets with injustice, he no longer clings to his rights and defends them at all costs.”
> 
> “The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match…..Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren.” “There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.”-Bonhoeffer
Click to expand...

 
No one here is advocating personal vengeance against someone who wrongs us. We are talking about (a) defending an innocent party from someone trying to kill them and with the means to do so, and (b) the government carrying out its responsibility to bear the sword. Personal revenge is not relevant to the discussion.

It is problematic to assert that God would give a task to the "secular government" to the exclusion of Christians. Since when do unbelievers obey commands from God? If God commands something concerning proper governing, it must be expected that he expects a Christian in that role to behave in that way. Also, there is no such thing as a "secular government." Every government has religious beliefs that form the basis of its decisions. The fact that our government thinks it is neutral makes it especially dangerous.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> Curious, would you say if "latest abortion-doctor murderer (like all the others)" were killing 4 year old's in their clinics would they be "moral failures"? Of course this assumes it were legal and accepted in the eyes of the "law".


Of course it would be a moral failure. All vigilantism is a shocking horror against God, and it is moral poverty to raise it any higher on the scale of affronts to God's law than the equally horrific abortionist.

The fact is, if abortion were illegal, it would still be an unjustifiable homicide to attack the wicked practitioner in the foyer of his church, outside his home, or in the vestibule of his abattoir/abortuary. It would be equally wrong to attack an infanticide (or greater) practitioner, on the suppositions that 1) the practice was either legal/regulated or illegal, 2) that you knew he was responsible for previous sins (were you an eyewitness?), and 3) that you knew he was getting ready to do another.

That last is the most egregious and sinful breach, because unless a man is God, claiming to know the future is a form of blasphemy.

Finally, the accessory-before-the-fact keeps getting left out of this equation. Are YOU in favor of killing the mom? Or executing her after the fact?


On the one hand, it's really easy to throw out emotive "hard-cases" to try to get people to waffle on the issues. Instead of trying to bait me, how about dealing with the fundamental fact that most of us are in no God-ordained position to Judge in the matter?


----------



## earl40

Contra_Mundum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious, would you say if "latest abortion-doctor murderer (like all the others)" were killing 4 year old's in their clinics would they be "moral failures"? Of course this assumes it were legal and accepted in the eyes of the "law".
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it would be a moral failure. All vigilantism is a shocking horror against God, and it is moral poverty to raise it any higher on the scale of affronts to God's law than the equally horrific abortionist.
> 
> The fact is, if abortion were illegal, it would still be an unjustifiable homicide to attack the wicked practitioner in the foyer of his church, outside his home, or in the vestibule of his abattoir/abortuary. It would be equally wrong to attack an infanticide (or greater) practitioner, on the suppositions that 1) the practice was either legal/regulated or illegal, 2) that you knew he was responsible for previous sins (were you an eyewitness?), and 3) that you knew he was getting ready to do another.
> 
> That last is the most egregious and sinful breach, because unless a man is God, claiming to know the future is a form of blasphemy.
> 
> Finally, the accessory-before-the-fact keeps getting left out of this equation. Are YOU in favor of killing the mom? Or executing her after the fact?
> 
> 
> On the one hand, it's really easy to throw out emotive "hard-cases" to try to get people to waffle on the issues. Instead of trying to bait me, how about dealing with the fundamental fact that most of us are in no God-ordained position to Judge in the matter?
Click to expand...


No bait intended....just showing that unless you are a total pacifist, which it appears you may be, the "bait" was intended to show you that if they were 4 year olds you would justify killing the clinic killers. You may not agree with me here but the "bait" is the devise I am using to counter your arguements. So far as saying "who knows if they are going to kill in the future" is rather inane if you ask me....and you know it. 

PS. I am not going to advocate the killing of abortionist today, but I would inject their veins with poisen if the law allowed it after a trial. So far as mommy I would tend to be a tad more merciful.... at least for a while.


----------



## earl40

Joshua said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just showing that unless you are a total pacifist, which it appears you may be
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you've even read his posts?  Particularly this one: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/reformed-christian-pacifism-58434/#post756472
> 
> How you can think he's a "total pacifist" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

 

Good point.

You are correct...he probably would be OK with activaly defending 4 YO children being systematcally killed in clinics, if that was happening.


----------



## PuritanZealot

> The lesson of Moses is a lesson in properly acquired and properly exercised judicial power. It is not a license to kill.


In response your whole reply (not worth quoting the whole thing), I agree with your first three points, well I agree with all of them, and I admit I was ranting-blunderbuss.
I'm not looking for a licence to kill from scripture, far from it, and I don't really think what Moses did was determined as right of wrong by God or by Scripture. And the point I made about the Law not having been given yet I'm not saying that it made it OK I'm just saying maybe Moses would have been more repentant of what he did or wouldn't have done it had the crime of the Egyptian been witnessed post-Sinai. What I meant by that phrase was that there was no crime committed against the Law as Moses would eventually see it because the Law hadn't yet been given. In the same way Paul says "for where no law is, there is no transgression" Romans 4:15.
Does that make sense? I hope so.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

earl40 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, it's really easy to throw out emotive "hard-cases" to try to get people to waffle on the issues. Instead of trying to bait me, how about dealing with the fundamental fact that most of us are in no God-ordained position to Judge in the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bait intended....just showing that unless you are a total pacifist, which it appears you may be, the "bait" was intended to show you that if they were 4 year olds you would justify killing the clinic killers. You may not agree with me here but the "bait" is the devise I am using to counter your arguements. So far as saying "who knows if they are going to kill in the future" is rather inane if you ask me....and you know it.
> 
> PS. I am not going to advocate the killing of abortionist today, but I would inject their veins with poisen if the law allowed it after a trial. So far as mommy I would tend to be a tad more merciful.... at least for a while.
Click to expand...

 
Of course I recognized exactly what you were doing, which is why I called it "bait." You thought it possible to entrap me or show inconsistency, because I would oppose ambushing an abortionist but be caught on the horns of a dilemma re._ legalized _(your term) toddler-cide.

Do you admire the killers of the abortionists? Are they simply bolder than you? Do you think, in the event of Moloch-like, legalized, 4yr-old-snuffing, Christians should ambush the Tophets?

Apparently you think that "all reasonable Christians" would agree to the latter course of action; hence, by a minor extension of the same principle, assaults on abortionists are fine. And anyone who disagrees with you must be a "total pacifist" of some kind.

Your reading comprehension is matched by your ability to exegete my position from the written material: poor. You offered exactly zero effective "counter" to my arguments: since your _reductio ad absurdam_ interpretation not only heads in the wrong direction (toward exaggeration, rather than reduction), but it also fails _a fortiori_, because it clearly rests (as presented) on the assumed legitimacy of the previous case--a classic _petitio principii_ (begging the question).

First prove the former, or if you prefer, the latter from Scripture. The "emotional appeal" of your argument is an _ignoratio elenchi_, an irrelevant conclusion.

As for the "future" question, that is precisely the defense used by the vigilantes in the news. How many of these people have used the defense, "I was executing him for his previous offenses"? Of course, in such a case, the killer must produce his evidence in a court of law, as well as his credentials as an Avenger. They have only here-say, boasting of the killers, etc.

The insurmountable obstacles in conducting such a defense is why these folks justify themselves on the basis of "SAVING LIVES." If you have missed this, then read or watch more news. Calling me "inane" is just spewing more emotive language.

Preemptive-strikes, beside being difficult to prove in a court of law, are typically most blasphemous. It's one thing to be watching the fist rare back to strike, and execute the first-strike jab. It is another to lie in wait for your "enemy" and strike him down--the "I hit him back first!" defense.

As for your vengeful attitude exhibited toward the killer (the hired hit-man) and the mothers-not-to-be, you speak most eloquently of your general disposition toward them.

Here are my attitudes:"Love your enemies." 

"Open thy mouth for the dumb, In the cause of all such as are left desolate.
Open thy mouth, judge righteously, And minister justice to the poor and needy."

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.​


----------



## TimV

> Are they simply bolder than you?



That's what it normally comes down to. "I'm braver than you since although I'm too chicken to spend the rest of my life in jail by doing what is right at least I support those who are braver then myself by praising them, but not to the point of taking any personal risk".


----------



## N. Eshelman

> Self-defense against unlawful violence is always legitimate. It is more than legitimate, it is a moral obligation. Our life is not our own; it belongs to God, and therefore as stewards of God's possessions we are under obligation to preserve our own lives and the lives of others, from destruction by criminal violence.


 JG Vos on self defense.


----------



## earl40

Contra_Mundum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, it's really easy to throw out emotive "hard-cases" to try to get people to waffle on the issues. Instead of trying to bait me, how about dealing with the fundamental fact that most of us are in no God-ordained position to Judge in the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bait intended....just showing that unless you are a total pacifist, which it appears you may be, the "bait" was intended to show you that if they were 4 year olds you would justify killing the clinic killers. You may not agree with me here but the "bait" is the devise I am using to counter your arguements. So far as saying "who knows if they are going to kill in the future" is rather inane if you ask me....and you know it.
> 
> PS. I am not going to advocate the killing of abortionist today, but I would inject their veins with poisen if the law allowed it after a trial. So far as mommy I would tend to be a tad more merciful.... at least for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I recognized exactly what you were doing, which is why I called it "bait." You thought it possible to entrap me or show inconsistency, because I would oppose ambushing an abortionist but be caught on the horns of a dilemma re._ legalized _(your term) toddler-cide.
> 
> Do you admire the killers of the abortionists? Are they simply bolder than you? Do you think, in the event of Moloch-like, legalized, 4yr-old-snuffing, Christians should ambush the Tophets?
> 
> Apparently you think that "all reasonable Christians" would agree to the latter course of action; hence, by a minor extension of the same principle, assaults on abortionists are fine. And anyone who disagrees with you must be a "total pacifist" of some kind.
> 
> Your reading comprehension is matched by your ability to exegete my position from the written material: poor. You offered exactly zero effective "counter" to my arguments: since your _reductio ad absurdam_ interpretation not only heads in the wrong direction (toward exaggeration, rather than reduction), but it also fails _a fortiori_, because it clearly rests (as presented) on the assumed legitimacy of the previous case--a classic _petitio principii_ (begging the question).
> 
> First prove the former, or if you prefer, the latter from Scripture. The "emotional appeal" of your argument is an _ignoratio elenchi_, an irrelevant conclusion.
> 
> As for the "future" question, that is precisely the defense used by the vigilantes in the news. How many of these people have used the defense, "I was executing him for his previous offenses"? Of course, in such a case, the killer must produce his evidence in a court of law, as well as his credentials as an Avenger. They have only here-say, boasting of the killers, etc.
> 
> The insurmountable obstacles in conducting such a defense is why these folks justify themselves on the basis of "SAVING LIVES." If you have missed this, then read or watch more news. Calling me "inane" is just spewing more emotive language.
> 
> Preemptive-strikes, beside being difficult to prove in a court of law, are typically most blasphemous. It's one thing to be watching the fist rare back to strike, and execute the first-strike jab. It is another to lie in wait for your "enemy" and strike him down--the "I hit him back first!" defense.
> 
> As for your vengeful attitude exhibited toward the killer (the hired hit-man) and the mothers-not-to-be, you speak most eloquently of your general disposition toward them.
> 
> Here are my attitudes:"Love your enemies."
> 
> "Open thy mouth for the dumb, In the cause of all such as are left desolate.
> Open thy mouth, judge righteously, And minister justice to the poor and needy."
> 
> "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.​
Click to expand...


I enjoyed your post and appreciate the time it took you to write it. Thank you.

I assure you my "bait" was just simply to exemplify what would be correct in the eyes of God IF we take the position that justifiable force can be used against someone who will PROBABLY hurt a neighbor. The "inane" was not directed towards you PERSONALLY, but is based on the extreme probability that an abortionist will kill a child the next day he goes to work, or that the sun will rise up in the morning. Of course we "don't know" that will happen the next day but I think you understand why I believe the argument that "you don't know what will happen tomorrow" is assuming The Lord may intervene before that moment in time. We may hope so, but in the mean time we should act like He will not and do what is correct in His eyes. This you point out correctly in that scripture it is the civil magistrate to act as they are ordained to do (which we both will agree they are not doing in the case in abortions). I agree to all your points here and will take a tad of selfish delight there is a hell, and The Lord of the universe will do what is right at the time He chooses.

This is an interesting area because I have read convincing articles that present both sides of people resisting governments and establishing their own country. Do we say the ones that succeeded were the apple of God's Eye? 

For myself on the issue of justifiable force against 4 year old child killers (yes an extreme example) is based solely on principle that in God's eyes it may be no different as those that kill babies in the womb or people during the holocaust. "All vigilantism is a shocking horror against God" is correct and one must decide, or rather let the state do so, whether it was justified or not. Of course I assume you might not want to trust our judges to do so now a days, If you get my drift Vern. 

I wonder aloud here...what of Robin Hood (fiction I know)? What of William Wallace? Were those that resisted the Nazi's in Germany doing good? What about people that resisted blatantly evil dictators? Were these all resisting the ordinance of God?

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------




TimV said:


> Are they simply bolder than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it normally comes down to. "I'm braver than you since although I'm too chicken to spend the rest of my life in jail by doing what is right at least I support those who are braver then myself by praising them, but not to the point of taking any personal risk".
Click to expand...


Great point. In time ministers of the entire council of God will be looked on with suspect eyes by our government sooner or later.


----------



## Particular Baptist

nleshelman said:


> Self-defense against unlawful violence is always legitimate. It is more than legitimate, it is a moral obligation. Our life is not our own; it belongs to God, and therefore as stewards of God's possessions we are under obligation to preserve our own lives and the lives of others, from destruction by criminal violence.
> 
> 
> 
> JG Vos on self defense.
Click to expand...


So you have established that J.G. Vos was in favor of someone using violence to defend themselves, have you established that from the New Testament? Christ apparently didn't think that it was right for even him to defend himself in the most UNJUST of circumstances. This was more unjust than any genocide or abortion could even think of being, the Sovereign, Most Holy God of the Universe came to earth, took upon himself our sins and bore our sinful flesh for 33 years before being crucified. Now, I say that if Christ did not defend himself, are servants greater than their masters? (John 15:20) Of course not! As true disciples we have left all to follow Christ, including our rights and our liberties that even our own founding fathers thought they were guaranteed by God. We leave everything because the master has called, we can do nothing but follow in single-minded obediance.


----------



## Skyler

Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?

---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.


----------



## Particular Baptist

austinww said:


> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, to use the words of Jesus, the law requires mercy AND justice. (Matthew 23:23 cf. Luke 11:42) Seeking to punish another human being according to God's direction (i.e. the law) is not a contradiction of the command to love one's neighbour. Both are commands from God and both must be followed. _Wisdom_ will seek to apply the one in the right context and right balance but, nevertheless, they will continue to exist side by side until our Lord returns again. If we fail to exact justice by the proper means (government) we will all lose out, even Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in that it is government who has been given the authority to execute justice. It is not the church's role to execute this task, but secular governments. This is so because "Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law… the church … is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore… must patiently endure aggression.”-Bonhoeffer. “At this point it becomes evident that when a Christian meets with injustice, he no longer clings to his rights and defends them at all costs.”
> 
> “The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match…..Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren.” “There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.”-Bonhoeffer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one here is advocating personal vengeance against someone who wrongs us. We are talking about (a) defending an innocent party from someone trying to kill them and with the means to do so, and (b) the government carrying out its responsibility to bear the sword. Personal revenge is not relevant to the discussion.
> 
> It is problematic to assert that God would give a task to the "secular government" to the exclusion of Christians. Since when do unbelievers obey commands from God? If God commands something concerning proper governing, it must be expected that he expects a Christian in that role to behave in that way. Also, there is no such thing as a "secular government." Every government has religious beliefs that form the basis of its decisions. The fact that our government thinks it is neutral makes it especially dangerous.
Click to expand...


Austin,

Before we begin discussing whether some degree of Christian pacifism is scriptural, we must first lay out the state of the disciple of Christ. This part of my theology has been heavily influence by Bonhoeffer, I'm sure I'm going to be sounding somewhat like him because I read him every night. 

When the a sinner becomes a disciple, he becomes one soley because Christ calls him forth, into a new life of obediance and suffering with Christ. The disciple leaves all for the call of Christ. He asks not what his rights are, what is injust towards himself, the disciple sees only his Saviour and the cross he must bear. He has single-minded obediance and cares not about his own rights and liberties. 

With that basic understanding of discipleship, we must ask ourselves 'How are we to be true disciples of Christ?'. I say we must emulate our Master. Now maybe some here think that Christ, since he was God incarnate, had some special non-violent role to play that we as his followers are not bound to follow. To this, I firmly disagree. We must become more and more like Christ, not like the Reformers, not like any Reformed theologian, we must seek Christ! And I ask you to point out any place where Christ, the most Holy and Just man ever, ever found violence to be acceptable for even Him to use. Of course, there is no place in the scriptures! This goes hand in hand with the idea that Christians can have different moral values in two separate roles of life, two separate spheres. Christ certainly had no idea of this split person!! You cannot separate the Christian from the office. This is totally alien to the gospel. Once someone has become a disciple, they leave everything! They do not hold onto this world, these governments for their salvation. Our Salvation has come and is coming, it is not to be found within the walls of governments. Now we can see the relationship Christ had with the 'politicians of his era'. When Christ first came on the seen, while he was relatively popular with the people, they wanted to make him king, they wanted him to be their political, governmental Messiah. They thought that's where their salvation lay. Christ fled from these people. His kingdom is not of this world. Now we either believe that statement or we don't. We can't begin theorizing scripture away as if Christ simply wanted us to obey by faith and not by concrete action, or inaction. Christ never took politics upon himself, do we think that we as his followers are somehow different from our Master? I certainly don't believe so. That's why NONE of the apostles were in governmental positions!! You may say that they couldn't get those positions because they were viewed so negatively by the government and peoples of that time. And I say maybe it's about time that Christians become hated again, not because we do wrong, but because we preach the gospel and live the gospel in our daily lives. We think it's okay for us to have a certain amount of this world in us as long as we have this "faith", but I believe that when we do that (including myself who is guilty in the past of making an idol out of politics and this world) we bestow upon ourselves cheap grace, not the costly grace that only Christ can give.

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 AM ----------



> Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------
> 
> To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.


Actually, I would say that Bonhoeffer states that force was consistent when Israel was melded together with the state, the nation, and the military. But now, the church is separate from the state. That is one part of it.

The other side is that which I have gleamed from Bonhoeffer and my own personal reading of scripture (I use the ESV since we like to compare translations). I'm still personally trying to better understand the Biblical covenants in relation to each other, so some parts I'm still a little 'fuzzy' on. But, I believe that when Christ states that he has fulfilled the law, he means it and we should look to him, as our Master, and see how it was that he fulfilled the law. Christ fulfilled the law not by stoning the adulterous woman and not by defending himself against those who came to take him and crucify him, he fulfilled the law by love. He was selfless, he cared not about his own rights, his own liberties, the unjustice against him, all he cared about was justifying sinners. Note: He justified sinners, not the sin. He bought us, he didn't just forgive our sin and give us pardon. Our sin is innately what we are as fallen beings. Christ had to carry us, he had to bear our sinful flesh, that is why we are called the Body of Christ, because Christ did in some literal sense bear us to death. Now, if we have this union with our Lord do we think that we can do that which our Lord stated not to? Do we think that we have special circumstances that our Lord didn't have? 

Bonhoeffer uses the example of the rich young ruler. When the rich young ruler came to Christ, asking what he could do to have eternal life, Christ told him to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and follow Christ. Some on this board would say that Christ simply wants us to have 'faith' and that Christ didn't mean that, he simply means that we should hold our possessions as though we had them not. The problem is that the rich young ruler didn't have that option. He went away in tears because the discipleship of Christ is costly, it is real. Faith is not something to mentally ascertain, it is real, it is lived, those who live by faith must suffer because their Lord suffered. If we are the body of Christ, then we should see look to our Master as the standard.


----------



## Skyler

Particular Baptist said:


> Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------
> 
> To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]Actually, I would say that Bonhoeffer states that force was consistent when Israel was melded together with the state, the nation, and the military. But now, the church is separate from the state. That is one part of it.
> 
> The other side is that which I have gleamed from Bonhoeffer and my own personal reading of scripture (I use the ESV since we like to compare translations). I'm still personally trying to better understand the Biblical covenants in relation to each other, so some parts I'm still a little 'fuzzy' on. But, I believe that when Christ states that he has fulfilled the law, he means it and we should look to him, as our Master, and see how it was that he fulfilled the law. Christ fulfilled the law not by stoning the adulterous woman and not by defending himself against those who came to take him and crucify him, he fulfilled the law by love. He was selfless, he cared not about his own rights, his own liberties, the unjustice against him, all he cared about was justifying sinners. Note: He justified sinners, not the sin. He bought us, he didn't just forgive our sin and give us pardon. Our sin is innately what we are as fallen beings. Christ had to carry us, he had to bear our sinful flesh, that is why we are called the Body of Christ, because Christ did in some literal sense bear us to death. Now, if we have this union with our Lord do we think that we can do that which our Lord stated not to? Do we think that we have special circumstances that our Lord didn't have?
Click to expand...


I don't see how that argument changes anything. We have many examples in the Old Testament of people not caring for their own rights/liberties/unjustices as well. That's not new to the New Testament. Again, the "pacifism" expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as well as in his life was, I believe, the same as that taught by the Law and the example of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.

If, in the Old Testament, participation in government was permitted, then for it to be forbidden (in distinction to "not required") in the New Testament would require an explicit statement to that effect. I have not seen one. I have seen, from several sources, the argument that being in government is somehow inconsistent with not caring about our own rights/not seeking vengeance/etc. If this is so, though, then those Old Testament figures who were in government were also breaking the Old Testament law, which forbade that as well.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Skyler said:


> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------
> 
> To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]Actually, I would say that Bonhoeffer states that force was consistent when Israel was melded together with the state, the nation, and the military. But now, the church is separate from the state. That is one part of it.
> 
> The other side is that which I have gleamed from Bonhoeffer and my own personal reading of scripture (I use the ESV since we like to compare translations). I'm still personally trying to better understand the Biblical covenants in relation to each other, so some parts I'm still a little 'fuzzy' on. But, I believe that when Christ states that he has fulfilled the law, he means it and we should look to him, as our Master, and see how it was that he fulfilled the law. Christ fulfilled the law not by stoning the adulterous woman and not by defending himself against those who came to take him and crucify him, he fulfilled the law by love. He was selfless, he cared not about his own rights, his own liberties, the unjustice against him, all he cared about was justifying sinners. Note: He justified sinners, not the sin. He bought us, he didn't just forgive our sin and give us pardon. Our sin is innately what we are as fallen beings. Christ had to carry us, he had to bear our sinful flesh, that is why we are called the Body of Christ, because Christ did in some literal sense bear us to death. Now, if we have this union with our Lord do we think that we can do that which our Lord stated not to? Do we think that we have special circumstances that our Lord didn't have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that argument changes anything. We have many examples in the Old Testament of people not caring for their own rights/liberties/unjustices as well. That's not new to the New Testament. Again, the "pacifism" expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as well as in his life was, I believe, the same as that taught by the Law and the example of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.
> 
> If, in the Old Testament, participation in government was permitted, then for it to be forbidden (in distinction to "not required") in the New Testament would require an explicit statement to that effect. I have not seen one. I have seen, from several sources, the argument that being in government is somehow inconsistent with not caring about our own rights/not seeking vengeance/etc. If this is so, though, then those Old Testament figures who were in government were also breaking the Old Testament law, which forbade that as well.
Click to expand...


First of all, your argument that I need an explicit statement to that effect is quite similar to the argument that many paedobaptists use to justify infant baptism. 

Secondly, we must again distinguish between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Also, we must understand that there is diversity in the way in which God progressively has revealed himself throughout the ages. Under the Old Covenant the Church was the nation, it was a theocracy. No one is arguing that. But, the church has been stripped of its national and political ties.


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------
> 
> To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]Actually, I would say that Bonhoeffer states that force was consistent when Israel was melded together with the state, the nation, and the military. But now, the church is separate from the state. That is one part of it.
> 
> The other side is that which I have gleamed from Bonhoeffer and my own personal reading of scripture (I use the ESV since we like to compare translations). I'm still personally trying to better understand the Biblical covenants in relation to each other, so some parts I'm still a little 'fuzzy' on. But, I believe that when Christ states that he has fulfilled the law, he means it and we should look to him, as our Master, and see how it was that he fulfilled the law. Christ fulfilled the law not by stoning the adulterous woman and not by defending himself against those who came to take him and crucify him, he fulfilled the law by love. He was selfless, he cared not about his own rights, his own liberties, the unjustice against him, all he cared about was justifying sinners. Note: He justified sinners, not the sin. He bought us, he didn't just forgive our sin and give us pardon. Our sin is innately what we are as fallen beings. Christ had to carry us, he had to bear our sinful flesh, that is why we are called the Body of Christ, because Christ did in some literal sense bear us to death. Now, if we have this union with our Lord do we think that we can do that which our Lord stated not to? Do we think that we have special circumstances that our Lord didn't have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that argument changes anything. We have many examples in the Old Testament of people not caring for their own rights/liberties/unjustices as well. That's not new to the New Testament. Again, the "pacifism" expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as well as in his life was, I believe, the same as that taught by the Law and the example of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.
> 
> If, in the Old Testament, participation in government was permitted, then for it to be forbidden (in distinction to "not required") in the New Testament would require an explicit statement to that effect. I have not seen one. I have seen, from several sources, the argument that being in government is somehow inconsistent with not caring about our own rights/not seeking vengeance/etc. If this is so, though, then those Old Testament figures who were in government were also breaking the Old Testament law, which forbade that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your argument that I need an explicit statement to that effect is quite similar to the argument that many paedobaptists use to justify infant baptism.
> 
> Secondly, we must again distinguish between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Also, we must understand that there is diversity in the way in which God progressively has revealed himself throughout the ages. Under the Old Covenant the Church was the nation, it was a theocracy. No one is arguing that. But, the church has been stripped of its national and political ties.
Click to expand...

 
But you are arguing that pacifism is a moral requirement. If that is so, a change between covenants would mean that God's nature had changed - that what he considers moral has changed. That is impossible. God's character does not change, and so if he finds defense of the lives of others morally acceptable (and obligatory) in the OT, then he still does in the NT because his character does not change.

Also, even though the church is not a nation or a government, the New Testament clearly reveals that governments are to remain and should obey God (Rom. 13). Governments are not sinful, they are necessary, and it follows that Christians may and should govern if there is opportunity, and in a manner that pleases God - by carrying out justice.

Now, regarding the need for an explicit statement that God has changed his moral requirements - Jesus himself said in the same sermon that he came not to abolish one iota of the Law and the Prophets.


----------



## Houston E.

Particular Baptist,

If you were being attacked, would it be wrong of a neighbor to come and defend you
from the attacker? Would you reject their assistance?

Blessings,


----------



## kjat32

This seems to be mostly concerned with non-resistance in a personal sense. I wrote an article about Christian non-resistance (somewhat different than what's called pacifism) and whether or not a Christian can go to war:
war26.1.09.php

I'm just linking it cuz I treated most of the OT/NT verses that people disagree on and it's long to just quote.

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

Oh, many of you will find the history of the early church by Cadoux (linked in the article) very interesting.

---------- Post added at 12:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:11 PM ----------

Oh, many of you will find the history of the early church by Cadoux (linked in the article) very interesting, take a look!


----------



## Skyler

Particular Baptist said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particular Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer: How do Bonhoeffer/Barth/etc. respond to the criticism I put forth earlier, that is, the "pacifism" in the New Testament is identical to that commanded under the Old Testament? Or do they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------
> 
> To say that Christ never defended himself once in his life is an argument from silence. Technically.
> 
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]Actually, I would say that Bonhoeffer states that force was consistent when Israel was melded together with the state, the nation, and the military. But now, the church is separate from the state. That is one part of it.
> 
> The other side is that which I have gleamed from Bonhoeffer and my own personal reading of scripture (I use the ESV since we like to compare translations). I'm still personally trying to better understand the Biblical covenants in relation to each other, so some parts I'm still a little 'fuzzy' on. But, I believe that when Christ states that he has fulfilled the law, he means it and we should look to him, as our Master, and see how it was that he fulfilled the law. Christ fulfilled the law not by stoning the adulterous woman and not by defending himself against those who came to take him and crucify him, he fulfilled the law by love. He was selfless, he cared not about his own rights, his own liberties, the unjustice against him, all he cared about was justifying sinners. Note: He justified sinners, not the sin. He bought us, he didn't just forgive our sin and give us pardon. Our sin is innately what we are as fallen beings. Christ had to carry us, he had to bear our sinful flesh, that is why we are called the Body of Christ, because Christ did in some literal sense bear us to death. Now, if we have this union with our Lord do we think that we can do that which our Lord stated not to? Do we think that we have special circumstances that our Lord didn't have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how that argument changes anything. We have many examples in the Old Testament of people not caring for their own rights/liberties/unjustices as well. That's not new to the New Testament. Again, the "pacifism" expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as well as in his life was, I believe, the same as that taught by the Law and the example of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.
> 
> If, in the Old Testament, participation in government was permitted, then for it to be forbidden (in distinction to "not required") in the New Testament would require an explicit statement to that effect. I have not seen one. I have seen, from several sources, the argument that being in government is somehow inconsistent with not caring about our own rights/not seeking vengeance/etc. If this is so, though, then those Old Testament figures who were in government were also breaking the Old Testament law, which forbade that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your argument that I need an explicit statement to that effect is quite similar to the argument that many paedobaptists use to justify infant baptism.
Click to expand...


Do you disagree with the principle? I haven't studied the paedobaptists' arguments to any major extent, but from what I understand the credobaptist defense focuses not on that principle but on the paedobaptists' assumption that baptism and circumcision have a one-to-one relationship. That being the case, I don't think I've committed that error here.



> Secondly, we must again distinguish between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Also, we must understand that there is diversity in the way in which God progressively has revealed himself throughout the ages. Under the Old Covenant the Church was the nation, it was a theocracy. No one is arguing that. But, the church has been stripped of its national and political ties.


 
But we need not impose a difference where none exists. In this case, "pacifism" is taught in identical terms under both the Old and New Covenants.

The way I understand it, governmental nonparticipation (i.e., Christians aren't allowed to take government office) hinges upon the New Testament's definition of pacifism excluding government office. Is this a fair estimation of your position? If not, please clarify. Thanks.


----------



## Particular Baptist

Houston E. said:


> Particular Baptist,
> 
> If you were being attacked, would it be wrong of a neighbor to come and defend you
> from the attacker? Would you reject their assistance?
> 
> Blessings,



Sir,

I have stated before that I do not believe on an individual basis to assist someone else being attacked. That is the only time that I personally can see force being an appropriate measure.

Spencer


----------



## Particular Baptist

> Do you disagree with the principle? I haven't studied the paedobaptists' arguments to any major extent, but from what I understand the credobaptist defense focuses not on that principle but on the paedobaptists' assumption that baptism and circumcision have a one-to-one relationship. That being the case, I don't think I've committed that error here.



You are correct in stating that a large portion of the credo arguemnt is based upon the reality that baptism and circumcision do not have a direct correlation. But, I would say that, for me, and for some other Calvinistic Baptists, a large part of the argument is whether the church is still to operate on a national level. The reality that the church no longer is to be a national organization and a political entity as it was under the old administration lends to the idea that baptism is onlyl to be given to those who give credible profession of faith beforehand. Walter Chantry directly ties the idea of a state church to the practice of paedobaptism. 

http://http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/chantry/bc.htm

But we need not impose a difference where none exists. In this case, "pacifism" is taught in identical terms under both the Old and New Covenants.



> The way I understand it, governmental nonparticipation (i.e., Christians aren't allowed to take government office) hinges upon the New Testament's definition of pacifism excluding government office. Is this a fair estimation of your position? If not, please clarify. Thanks.



You are correct, that I (though I must say am not firmly committed to the idea) would have to find the idea that Christian shouldn't or can't take government office in the New Testament. (Let me first state that, though this may seem contradictory, I am not opposed to voting.) But, I would say that my understanding of the New Covenant and the New Testament would seem to indicate that the disciple must lose everything, must abandon all that he knows for the sake of the call of Christ. My belief in Christian non-violence is based upon a more literal understanding of our union with Christ and looking at the actions of the first disciples and the apostles. I stress and belabor the point that Christ bore us in his flesh, he bore our flesh. We are so closely tied to him, he is our master and we can only go where he wills because he still is the only source of holiness for wretched sinners. He justified sinners on the cross, he didn't seek personal defense or restitution for himself. Christ conquered evil by patient suffering, do we think that we will conquer evil in some other fashion? Do we think that Christ didn't understand how evil the world is, because he didn't use force? Perhaps the Jews were right and Christ really was a military, geopolitical Messiah? 

Bonhoeffer states in best when he comments on Matthew 5:38-42:

"At this point it become evident that when a Christian meets with injustice, he no longer clings to his rights and defends them at all costs. He is absolutely free from possessions and bound to Christ alone. Again, his witness to this exclusive adherence to Jesus creates the only workable basis for fellowship, and leave the aggressor for him to deal with.

The only way to over come evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But when evil meets no opposition and encounter no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets and opponent which is more than its match. Of course this can only happen when the last ounce of resistance is abandoned, and the renunciation of revenge is complete. Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil, and is left barren.

By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy in his own coin, and by preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence. When a man unjustly demands that I should give him my coast, I offer him my cloak also, and so counter his demand’ when he requires me to go the other mile, I go willingly, and show up his exploitation of my service for what it is. To leave everything behind at the call of Christ is to be content with him alone, and to follow only him. By his willingly renouncing self-defense, the Christian affirms his absolute adherence to Jesus, and his freedom from the tyranny of his own ego. The exclusiveness of this adherence is the only power which can overcome evil. 
We are concerned not with evil in the abstract, but with the evil person. Jesus bluntly calls the evil person evil. If I am assailed, I am not to condone or justify aggression. Patient endurance of evil does not mean recognition of its rights. That is sheer sentimentality, and Jesus will have nothing to do with it. The shameful assault, the deed of violence and the act of exploitation are still evil. The disciple must realize this, and bear witness to it as Jesus did, just because this is the only way evil can be meet and overcome. The very fact that the evil which assaults him is unjustifiable make it imperative that he should not resist it, but play it out and overcome it by patiently enduring the evil person. Suffering willingly endured is stronger than evil, it spells death to evil.
There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.

The Reformers offered a decisively new interpretation of this passage, and contributed a new idea of paramount importance. They distinguished between personal sufferings and those incurred by Christians in the performance of duty as bearers of an office ordained by God, maintaining that the precept of non-violence applies to the first but not to the second. In the second case we are not only freed from obligation to eschew violence, but if we want to act in a genuine spirit of love we must do the very opposite and meet fore with force in order to check the assault of evil. It was along these lines that the Reformers justified war and other legal sanctions against evil. But this distinction between person and office is wholly alien to the teaching of Jesus. He says nothing about that. HE addresses his disciples as men who have left all to follow him, and the precept of non-violence applies equally to private life and official duty. He is the Lord of all life, and demands undivided allegiance. Furthermore, when it comes to practice, this distinction raises insoluble difficulties. Am I ever acting only as a private person or only in an official capacity? If I am attacked am I not at once the father of my children, the pastor of my flock, and e.g. a government official? Am I not bound for that very reason to defense myself against every attack, for reason of responsibility to my office? And am I not also always an individual, face to face with Jesus, even in the performance of my official duties? Am I not therefore obliged to resist every attack just because of my responsibility for my office? Is it right to forget that the follower of Jesus is always utterly alone, always the individual, who in the last resort can only decide and act for himself? Don’t we act most responsibility on behalf of those entrusted to our care if we act in this aloneness?

How then can the precept of Jesus be justified in the light of experience? It is obvious that weakness and defenselessness only invite aggression. Is then the demand of Jesus nothing but an impracticable ideal? Does he refuse to face up to realities-or shall we say, to the sin of the world? There may of course be a legitimate place for such an ideal in the inner life of the Christian community, but in the outside world such an ideal appears to wear the blinkers of perfectionism, and to take no account of sin. Living as we do in a world of sin and evil, we can have no truck with anything as impracticable as that.

Jesus, however, tells us that it is just because we live in the world, and just because the world is evil, that the precept of non-resistance must be put into practice. Surely we do not wish to accuse Jesus of ignoring the reality and power of evil! Why, the whole of his life was one long conflict with the devil. He calls evil evil, and this is the very reason why he speaks to his followers in this way. How is that possible?

If we took the precept of non-resistance as an ethical blueprint for general application, we should indeed be indulging in idealistic dreams: we should be dreaming of a utopia with laws which the world would never obey. To make non-resistance a principle for secular life is to deny God, by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world. But Jesus is no draughtsman of political blue prints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of nonviolence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept. And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ’s victory as well as of his sufferings.

The passion of Christ is the victory of divine love over the powers of evil, and therefore it is the only supportable basis for Christian obedience. Once again, Jesus calls those who follow him to share his passion. How can we convince the world by our preaching of the passion when we shrink from the passion in our lives?”


----------



## Skyler

Particular Baptist said:


> Do you disagree with the principle? I haven't studied the paedobaptists' arguments to any major extent, but from what I understand the credobaptist defense focuses not on that principle but on the paedobaptists' assumption that baptism and circumcision have a one-to-one relationship. That being the case, I don't think I've committed that error here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct in stating that a large portion of the credo arguemnt is based upon the reality that baptism and circumcision do not have a direct correlation. But, I would say that, for me, and for some other Calvinistic Baptists, a large part of the argument is whether the church is still to operate on a national level. The reality that the church no longer is to be a national organization and a political entity as it was under the old administration lends to the idea that baptism is onlyl to be given to those who give credible profession of faith beforehand. Walter Chantry directly ties the idea of a state church to the practice of paedobaptism.
> 
> http://http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/chantry/bc.htm
Click to expand...


I don't advocate theonomy or a state church. There's a difference between the church as an institution being the government and a Christian as an individual being in government.



> But we need not impose a difference where none exists. In this case, "pacifism" is taught in identical terms under both the Old and New Covenants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I understand it, governmental nonparticipation (i.e., Christians aren't allowed to take government office) hinges upon the New Testament's definition of pacifism excluding government office. Is this a fair estimation of your position? If not, please clarify. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct, that I (though I must say am not firmly committed to the idea) would have to find the idea that Christian shouldn't or can't take government office in the New Testament. (Let me first state that, though this may seem contradictory, I am not opposed to voting.) But, I would say that my understanding of the New Covenant and the New Testament would seem to indicate that the disciple must lose everything, must abandon all that he knows for the sake of the call of Christ. My belief in Christian non-violence is based upon a more literal understanding of our union with Christ and looking at the actions of the first disciples and the apostles. I stress and belabor the point that Christ bore us in his flesh, he bore our flesh. We are so closely tied to him, he is our master and we can only go where he wills because he still is the only source of holiness for wretched sinners. He justified sinners on the cross, he didn't seek personal defense or restitution for himself. Christ conquered evil by patient suffering, do we think that we will conquer evil in some other fashion? Do we think that Christ didn't understand how evil the world is, because he didn't use force? Perhaps the Jews were right and Christ really was a military, geopolitical Messiah?
Click to expand...


Let me try to extract the logic behind your argument.

p1. Jesus conquered evil through patient suffering.
c. The only way to conquer evil is through patient suffering.

As it stands, this argument is a non sequitur--the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. If we use the same logic, we can reach the following (hopefully absurd) conclusion:

p1. Jesus ate his fish broiled.
c. The only way to eat fish is broiled.

I think there's actually a second, hidden, premise:

p2. The way Jesus does something is the only way to do it.

In which case, your argument is valid, but unsound, unless you have Scriptural support for this premise. If not, then your argument fails.

I appreciate that you're considering these things. I wish more people would.


----------



## Particular Baptist

I found this denomination interesting the Brethren Reformed Church. The church grew out of the Church of the Brethren but is monergistic, if not Calvinistic, in its soteriology while still adhering to the threefold communion service and pacifism. Just found it interesting.

Brethren Reformed Church

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_Reformed_Church


----------



## Skyler

I'd like to thank the mods for allowing this thread to remain open. I think this is a helpful topic to discuss even if it is unconfessional.


----------



## au5t1n

Jesus also specifically stated why he did not defend himself - He had a greater purpose: to fulfill what the Prophets had spoken, redeeming mankind according to his Father's plan. Otherwise he could have called ten legions of angels to his defense. But he did not call the angels because he had a more important battle to fight and a more important enemy to slay.

Besides, even if we established that passive non-resistance is generally the way for a Christian to act when it's just him and the other guy, that still doesn't prove your idea that Christians cannot carry out the necessary duties of government, like punishing crime or, in some cases, even waging war.


----------



## ZackF

As much as an anarcho-capitalist can be assimilated!!!


----------



## Brian Withnell

While I know this may seem rather out of place, in that it is so simple, and so many are discussing the issue with such fervor, being a Westminster man, the WLC in question 135 and 136 states clearly what is required by the sixth commandment ...


> Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behaviour; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.
> 
> Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.



If it is lawful to use force to preserve our own life, or the life of others, we are required to do it. It is not okay for us to not defend our life and the life of others.

To defend the weak is commanded. If I do not defend myself as well, do I not leave the weak (my wife and children) without defense? I see pacifism as a great evil that is held to by misreading the scriptures. The choice one faces when confronted by someone that uses violence against someone (violence being the unjust use of force) is not always so clear, but the choice is there ... does one allow evil to win the battle, or does one use lawful force to defend the innocent? If evil is to be suppressed, then we must be ready to use force to suppress it.


----------



## Houston E.

Particular Baptist said:


> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Particular Baptist,
> 
> If you were being attacked, would it be wrong of a neighbor to come and defend you
> from the attacker? Would you reject their assistance?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir,
> 
> I have stated before that I do not believe on an individual basis to assist someone else being attacked. That is the only time that I personally can see force being an appropriate measure.
> 
> Spencer
Click to expand...


 I think you meant that you believe force is appropriate when assisting someone....

But I asked about yourself. Would you accept or reject assistance if it was YOU being attacked?


----------



## kjat32

Brian Withnell said:


> While I know this may seem rather out of place, in that it is so simple, and so many are discussing the issue with such fervor, being a Westminster man, the WLC in question 135 and 136 states clearly what is required by the sixth commandment ...
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behaviour; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.
> 
> Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is lawful to use force to preserve our own life, or the life of others, we are required to do it. It is not okay for us to not defend our life and the life of others.
> 
> To defend the weak is commanded. If I do not defend myself as well, do I not leave the weak (my wife and children) without defense? I see pacifism as a great evil that is held to by misreading the scriptures. The choice one faces when confronted by someone that uses violence against someone (violence being the unjust use of force) is not always so clear, but the choice is there ... does one allow evil to win the battle, or does one use lawful force to defend the innocent? If evil is to be suppressed, then we must be ready to use force to suppress it.
Click to expand...

 
I would just like to point out, since the W. Confession is quoted regarding this issue so much, that the Confession is not the Bible. It is a guide only, and while very nice, is not the final authority - it absolutely CANNOT "command" us! The men at Westminster were fallible as well, and certainly being English, magisterial and 17th century influenced their views; warfare today is NOT the same as it was back then, and I think that while the Confession has much good to say to guide us it is not sufficient to guide us today on warfare.

Also, evil is not to be "suppressed" by force! It is to be fought spiritually - read the Bible!
"• II Corinthians 10:3-5 “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

These verses make it clear that our fight is spiritual. Note the Corinthians verse that says “we do not wage war as the world does.” And Jesus commands Peter not to fight. Rather, we are to live our lives in such a way as to make the teachings of Christ attractive to others and to pray unceasingly, for these are our acts of worship and our spiritual warfare. As we can see from early church history, those who knew Jesus and strove to follow these teachings in every way were more effective at changing the world than any war since!" (my article at sight)

As to pacifism being evil, well, I personally think it was the pacifism of all of Europe that led to WWII in the first place! If there had been proper Christian non-resistance (which is different than pacifism) then as soon as Hitler started being aggressive, the other countries would have stood to resist him - not by striking back but by standing their ground, which they so obviously did not. The Bible says that
"Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. "

Standing firm is very clearly commanded, not taking up our sword to go defend all the weak and helpless in the earth. That is a "police state" nationalistic idea, not a Christian one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

There is an irony to the sharp criticism of quoting a Confession. It goes something like this:

1. What the Church has confessed that the Scriptures teach in the Westminster Confession is easily dismissible because it was produced by fallible men.

BUT

2. What _I_ conclude from reading the Bible and quoting a few passages about Christian resistance ought to be given the weight of the authority of Scripture.

Modernity gives us the utmost confidence in the ability of our minds to properly apprehend the Scriptures. So much confidence, in fact, that the teaching role ordained by Christ in Ephesians 4 has little to say to us if we're confident we know what the Scriptures say.

The Westminster Standards serve as the doctrinal standard for this board because we find the counsel of many elders to be preferable to the many people who rightly understand that no Church has infallible man but wrongly and pridefully conclude that they possess an infallible capacity to divide the Word of God.

In other words, don't expect me to easily jettison the deliberations of fallible men, with the promised gifting of the Savior, engaged in theological dialogue across the centuries for a fallible man's shallow exposition of a few verses.


----------

