|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
PAGE 22 DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN NONVIOLENCE
Response from "AJ"
Sr. Ariman/E-4 (corp. USAF)
Nov 22, 2002 1:17:33 pm
Promiselander....Hello again.....It appears to me that you keep saying that it is acceptable and allowable in God's eyes(please correct me if I'm not understanding you clearly) for the 'state'(which literally means humans(Christian or not) just like you and me) to do violent acts sometimes in order to stop evil people's actions and that these SAME actions are NOT considered 'sin' for them(because God ordains these 'states' to do his will to keep order), but that if a Christian does the same act it is a sin! Is this a correct statement of what you would believe and agree with? Yes/no? And if it is true in your view then I can only assume that Christians(according to and in order to be consistent with your view) are never ,ever, under any circumstance whatsoever to be any part of a member of a 'state' police force of ANY kind (simply because all members of these forces are trained to kill and forcefully defend themselves and innocent others, even though God approves of these(state) member's actions!). Because if you say "yes" that they(Christians that are 'state' police-force type members(of which includes, but not limited to: city police, county sheriff, state patrol, some security guards, prison guards, secret agents, body guards to our political leaders and others, FBI, CIA, National guard, US military reserves,active-duty military(chaplains/medical personell not included), NATO forces and the like...),can acceptably commit these acts(according to God's order and will) but not 'civilian' Christians, then in essence you are saying that there are 2 different caregories of Christians('state' and 'civilian') who abide by 2 different 'standards' for the SAME act who worship the same God in possibly the SAME church! Would'nt this ultimately be true according to your interpretation of the New Testament scriptures you've so often shared with me? But then maybe you feel that NO Christian should ever serve in these positions for that very reason. Because really it doesn't matter to God if the 'civilian' Christian(who is convicted that these violent acts are sin to him and therefore abstains from them) OR that a 'state' police-force Christian isn't convicted that these acts of defending the innocent are wrong and therefore may commit them; simply because either the act itself is wrong or isn't wrong for ANY Christian!(according to the bible that I read).Just so I can CLEARLY understand you before I move ahead further in this discussion, it would definitely help to first know where you stand EXACTLY on this specific issue. Also, if you could quote me the exact scriptures (from whichever position you take on this matter) would be helpful. Thank you sir for trying to understand that I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Grace and Peace.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "LD"
senior/Bible college
Nov 23, 2002 1:40:27 am
Thanks to promiselander for the clear and detailed exegesis of our favorite Matthew 17 passage.
I must here state rather forcefully that I believe very strongly in total non-violence. God wants humans to live in love with their neighbors, and there is never an excuse to harm another. This principle cannot be limited to just Christians, though. It is very clearly God's perfect plan and will for everyone.
That said, I believe God made an exception to that general rule when He specifically gave the state the right and responsibility to bear the sword. This being said, people (who make up the state) have to be the ones who represent the state by actually bearing the sword (doing the violence). This is clearly God's will and way for preserving order on the local, national, and international scale. God nowhere forbids people from fulfilling this part of their duty to the state, even though He clearly forbids violence and killing in the rest of life. He also "fails" to forbid Christians to participate in this part of His will for people.
God does not have one command for sinners and another for Christians. He has one perfect will. If all killing and violence is sin, then He wants no one doing it. Since He doesn't say that, and clearly wants some to be violent and even kill at times (specifically under the auspices of the state), then people (including Christians) have the terrible responsibility to defend their society and state at its behest.
As far as the state being unjust and sinfully violent, that is a determination each person must make with God's guidance in each situation. I believe the first tendency should be to trust the judgment of God's minister (the state), but this must be tempered by a careful understanding of what's going on. (This would be a similar setup to the obeying of one's parents under the authority of God.) It comes back to a heart issue after all (as do all issues of right and wrong).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "LD"
Nov 23, 2002 1:48:37 am
Oh, and by the way, I often read several versions as well as the Greek before pasting in portions of the KJV in my posts. Alas, my free Bible program has but one version.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "Airman AJ"
Nov 23, 2002 10:28:12 am
lwd1... You stated that only the 'state' should at times carry out violent actions. Does this also mean to you that Christians not officially involved with the state can never defend themselves or innocent others in life-threatening situations. Also, I would love to hear promiselander's viewpoint with scriptures on this idea of 'civilian' Christians' rules and 'state' Christians' rules. Thank you.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "K"
Nov 23, 2002 7:32:25 pm
Promiselander, you asked me for Scriptures which would clarify my position. Then you narrowed the amount of available Scripture to about 1/3 of the total written Word of God? Do you believe all of Scripture is inspired? If you have studied the Bible extensively, and I assume you have, you have to admit that all NT Scripture is based on, and many times copied directly from OT writings. Anything that is in the NT is based exclusively on the Old Testament and what God did and said there. As I have said before, our issue is not specifically addressed in the NT because it didn't need to be! The principles found in the OT must be accepted along with anthing found in the NT.
And I did say the PRINCIPLES in the OT and not some of the outworkings of OT laws! For the Jews in the OT the Church and the State were one and the same. The Christians in the NT did not have any reason to discuss the issue we are presently discussing because they did not any say in what the State did.
I would like to share my thoughts on how that applies to us in a democratic society which was originally based solely on God's Word, but I don't want to bore anybody.
If you are going to base your philosophy/theology solely on the NT(which it seems like you are) then you have to keep in mind the historical/political/cultural context of the New Testament. You must also keep the purpose of the New Testament in perspective.
David(Promiselander), I am not attacking you or your personal belief. However, a well rounded and thoughtful philosophy of life must try to include all aspects and sources of information. To disregard the principles which God laid down in several thousand years worth of writing before Christ is a little presuptuous don't you think?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from promiselander
Nov 24, 2002 2:07:04 am
Bro. A,
You say that,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
...the 'state'(which literally means humans(Christian or not) just like you and me...
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... You are the one who says that, I do not say that and the Bible does not say that. You assume too much.
What is your problem???
You and I both believe it is a sin for a person to do that which God has commanded them not to do.
You and I both believe it is not a sin to do that which God commands us to do.
As far as killing, per se, being either a sin or not a sin in the absolute sense, we do not have that as a Biblical revelation. What we do have as a Biblical revelation is that when men in the Old Testament killed in obedience to God's directives, it was not sin and they were not liable before God. However, when men killed in disobedience to the directives of God, it was sin and they were liable before God. You are wanting me to go beyond Scripture by calling all killing sin or not sin. I don't play that game. You, on the other hand, are willing to go beyond Scripture and excuse all killing in the name of the military, the police, the private citizen and who knows who all.
I say that there may be an action which a Christian performs, though it is not the perfect will of God, and he still may still be a Christian. In other words, if that person does not have light on that issue, they are not necessarily condemned before God because of that action. Since they are walking in what light they have, they are being cleansed by the blood of the Lamb. Though there are those who would disagree with you and me, we believe that there are Christians who drink alcohol but are not condemned before God. However, when that person comes to be convicted for drinking alcohol, they must stop or they will be held accountable for disobedience to God. I believe this was your stated position before. If this is true, then you believe the same principle which I believe, but I apply it to killing for the State, whether military or otherwise.
You are continually saying that I have a double standard. I am saying that there is one standard. Obedience to God. You want me to put approval on killing in the name of the State and in the name of self defense and in the name of who knows what. I cannot do that. I can only say that if God approves it, then it is approved. I am also saying that if a person comes to the light of Christian nonviolence and walks against that light, he is sinning. How can this be hard for y'all to understand? All of us hold to this principle in other areas, I just happen to apply it here.
Bro. L, you err by saying that God,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
...clearly wants some to be violent and even kill at times (specifically under the auspices of the state),...
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... NO! God does not want us to kill under the auspices(?) of the State, instead He wants the State to maintain order under His authority. These are two totally different issues altogether. According to your statement, the Christian could be acting according to the whim and caprice of the State, but according to my statement, the State is acting according to the will of God. When the State is not acting according to the will of God, it is not the minister of God. If I ever do tell you my position on Romans 13 I will explain this. However, I am not sure that anyone has a genuine interest in my understanding of Romans 13 after the response to my post concering Matthew 17. I really do not want to post if it is only for amusement or boredom. After all, I asked someone to explain Mt. 17 to J and no one did.
Just because you do not see that there is a higher calling than being the whip of God does not change the fact that there is a higher calling. Jesus Himself did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved. And as the Father sent Him into the world, so He has sent us, to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. When He came this time, He came as the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world. He came in mercy. When He comes back, He comes as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He will come in judgment.
I am surpised that so many of you continue to speak as if you have never been taught that in the economy of God there is a distinction between the Church and the State, just as there is a Biblical distinction between the Church and the Jew. I am not wanting to get into this argument, but since it is part of the reason we see things so differently, I thought I would mention it.
Bro. K
You asked me,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe all of Scripture is inspired?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... YES!
You also said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you have studied the Bible extensively, and I assume you have, you have to admit that all NT Scripture is based on, and many times copied directly from OT writings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... YES!
You also said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anything that is in the NT is based exclusively on the Old Testament and what God did and said there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... NOT ALWAYS. It would depend on what you mean by "based exclusively on the ..." There are things in the New Testament which are not found in the Old. There are things in the Old Testament which are not required in the New. The Old Testament is called the Law for a reason and the New Testament is called the Gospel for a reason.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
You also said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
And I did say the PRINCIPLES in the OT and not some of the outworkings of OT laws! For the Jews in the OT the Church and the State were one and the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... Government was not the same to the Jew in the Old Testament as it was in the New. Government was not the same to the Old Testament Jew that it was to the New Testament Christian. Old Testament Israel or Judah was a Theocracy, Rome was never considered a Theocracy either by the Jews or the Church (unless you might be Roman Catholic).
I am sorry if my postings are boring, I am just trying to be open and honest in a mutual discussion. I know that I do not consider your postings to be boring.
You also said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you are going to base your philosophy/theology solely on the NT(which it seems like you are) then you have to keep in mind the historical/political/cultural context of the New Testament. You must also keep the purpose of the New Testament in perspective.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... you err in supposing that I base my philosophy/theology SOLELY on the N.T.
You also said,
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
To disregard the principles which God laid down in several thousand years worth of writing before Christ is a little presuptuous don't you think?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I respond... OCCASIONALLY, I think, that is... hehehe OKAY, maybe "'taint funny McGee." I do not disregard principles which God laid down in several thousand years of writing before Christ. But I am a CHRISTIAN, not a Jewish believer or elect or chosen one from the Old Testament. I am elect, chosen, but I am CHRISTIAN. I am a New Testament Believer. Belivers from the Old and New Testaments are not the same and they do not live out their faith the same. Are there similarities? YES, but they are not the same.
Let me know what you think.
Just out of curiosity, did any of you understand Mt. 17 the same way I explained it? If so... why didn't you explain it to Bro. J?
Love y'all
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
